WARNING: FortuneJack Refuses to Pay My Winning $6100 Tennis Bet or Return My BTC

[EpicChamp]

Because it is like I previously told you - If you would have cashed it out in full they would have just voided that balance from your account and only let you withdraw your deposit. It's quite simple.

According to FJ's timeline it was live for less than 3 hours, until canceled. How this all turned out is absolutely acceptable.

/thread

If this was a technical error they wouldn't have been slowly dropping odds by 0.2 units for 2-3 hours before freezing the match and changing odds completely - they would have done it right away in the first 30mins before the 1st change of odds.

They have NO valid excuses for even canceling this bet in the first place, absolutely NONE. I don't care if it's their platform or made a misjudgment mistake, they have to play by their own rules and can't just do whatever they want. They need to honor their bets, respect their users, and operate in fair play at all times.

And no, if I had cashed out in full I 100% guarantee you I would have been able to withdraw 100% of it on the spot. Otherwise, what's the point of them offering this option to begin with? Btw, this happened AFTER the odds completely changed, not during the first 2-3 hours.

And "technically" I still didn't even get my full money back. I had 0.14 btc originally and partially cashed out for 0.1394, so either way they owe me money no matter how you look at this.

So they better give me my money back or else I will bash them forever as they are breaking all of their own rules, stealing my money and operating in a shady & sketchy way like complete scammers.

[1714905071]

1714905071

[1714905071]

1714905071

[1714905071]

1714905071

[EpicChamp]

So what is this? You think FJ fabricated this screenshot?



You can clearly see why the bet was canceled. They canceled your bet as is allowed for them by their t & c. Everything else is immaterial. I can see why you'd prefer they didn't and honored the bet, but the fact is they don't have to, so they didn't. You're not changing anybody's minds here.

My previous comment also applies to your post as well.

It is NOT within their T&C and they are going against their own rules for their own benefit to avoid losing this bet.

Saying it was a "palpable" error is complete nonsense and up to interpretation. How do you even define and differentiate a palpable or technical error between an honest misjudgment?

Where does the line drawn between what's palpable/accidental and intentional?

To me De Jong being at 2.6 odds and then dropping to 1.3 is not that huge of a mistake or technical/palpable error at all.

His opponent (Altamirano) is the older player, more experienced in challengers, and has a higher career ranking than De Jong. I can give you a bunch of other reasons as to why it would make sense for him to be the favorite to win this match instead, and him being around 1.4 would make perfect sense.

It's not like a Roger Federer vs Fernando Verdasco grass-court match where Federer "accidentally" got listed at 5.0 odds of winning instead of say 1.2-1.3 like he was intended at initially. No one can say, support or back up Verdsaco ever being a huge favorite to beat Federer on a grass court in any way (assuming both players are healthy). So that would be a much better example of a "palpable" or technical error, but definitely not in this situation where De Jong being given 2.6 odds is not that unreasonable considering the circumstance and his opponent.

And like I said, what's 10x worse than them canceling the bet is them not returning my remaining stake.

What was the point of even offering me the option to cash out in full for 0.238 btc, or partially for whatever % I wanted if they knew they were going to cancel my bet either way right before the match and keep everything that was left to themselves?

How is that fair or ethical in any way, shape or form?

It's like giving your best friend an expensive gift for their birthday (like a brand new iPhone) with them graciously accepting it, and then a few days later FORCEFULLY taking it away from their hands & keeping it to yourself without their permission or consent (aka stealing) because you both got into some stupid argument. However, the MOMENT you gave your best friend that brand new iPhone, it is now 100% their asset, and taking it away from them in a forceful manner without their permission or consent does not only break all moral, ethical, and social rules - but all FORMAL rules too as it is 100% ILLEGAL and would be considered stealing, where you can be put in jail for that.

That's exactly what FortuneJack is doing here.

How can they possibly operate in such a shady & deceiving manner and literally steal people's money like this when they VOLUNTARILY gave them the option to partially cash out their bet and keep the remaining stake open is beyond me. Just complete madness.

They offered me this opportunity themselves which I gladly took, and then forcefully took it all away from me which goes against their own damn rules. They may have been given an order to cancel the bet from their odd provider (which I 100% disagree with but that's another discussion), but def NOT to take away people's stake and keep to for themselves. I've never seen anything like this before.

I get that they didn't intend to have those odds right away, but that's not a valid excuse and not my fault. They saw these "palpable" odds above 3.0 in the first 30mins and kept De Jong above 2.6 odds for the next 2-3 hours, when they could have easily canceled betting on this match right away if this really was such a terrible, obvious and huge mistake - but they didn't do that.

So if they allowed people to bet on this match in that 2-3 hour time span, then they have no right to go and cancel my bet afterwards after having so much time to do it beforehand. It's not like it was available for only a few mins and I quickly took advantage of it to exploit their "palpable" error at a ridiculous valuation.

It really doesn't make any sense and I 100% deserve to win this bet the normal way just like I always would anytime there is changes of odds for any match, this one being no different. And since they kept bets open for this match after the big change of odds without canceling it for other people or officially on their site - how is that fair that they cancel it only to me and to no one else? Just complete rubbish.

The only scenario where it would make sense for me to lose my remaining money on the bet is if the player I bet on would have lost the match, and that didn't happen.

Either way, upon canceling the bet the 1st thing they should have done at the time and must do right now is return the remaining stake of my bet for either 0.067 btc or ~0.1 btc. Then we can discuss whether the bet should have been canceled to begin with or not, and if not then it should count as a win and get the full 0.174 BTC.

Anything but that is a complete fraudulent behavior that is simply unacceptable and crosses all boundaries.

[FortuneJack]

FortuneJack's official statement regarding the case can be accessed within our main thread.

[EpicChamp]

FortuneJack's official statement regarding the case can be accessed within our main thread.

You never responded back to me again on your main thread with a follow-up message after I replied back to you.

I am still waiting for your response about the latest reply I made about what you wrote on your thread, because I am 100% against what you are doing and I have proven it on multiple occasions, even according to your own damn rules.

So whether on here on over there, I would like you to reply back to me and address the new points that I made.

This is completely unacceptable and you're not going to get away with stealing thousands of dollars from someone who WON a bet and is not only getting paid for winning, but also not being returned their stake at the bare minimum.

[cryptofrka]

Ths is turning out to be a really complicated case. There are 2 sides to it, we can discuss about morality and about legality.

Morally - FJ is in the wrong from the start. If I own a webshop and offer laptops for 40 euros, if I receive payment for a laptop, I simply have to sell it for 40 euros. It was my mistake to begin with. Same as bookies, they have to be responsible for the odds they are offering. Morally speaking his bet should be paid out in full - all the bets that are accepted on all the betting platforms should.
The problem is that they all work the same. It's not just FortuneJack, it's every bookie in the business. Their TOC basically says that they can do what they want and you have to accept it if you want to bet there.
Morality does not equal responsibility though - it just adds to a company's status among its customers. I'm pretty sure FJ will lose more money in lost revenue from some members who won't be betting there anymore than they would have if they admitted their mistake and paid out the bet - but it's their choice and morality is something a company can decide on. You can either be better to your customers or drain them for more money.

Legally I'm nowhere near educated enough to provide anything meaningful to the discussion. I *feel* he would win in court, based on multiple cases like these I'm aware of. There are a lot of possible complications though, because every country has their own legislative when it comes to cases like these and what was decided in Spain would probably not be decided in USA or Germany or wherever. Companies like these often have gaming licences in obscure countries and it can be hard to sue. Legality does equal responsibility though - that's why more and more people seek justice in court - most of them win as well.

There is no conspiracy here, shit happens. Nothing lost, nothing gained - move on.

Personally, it all comes to this and for me this is simply not acceptable. It is a business, OP did lose part of his effective balance and we cannot make it go away because FJ is here a long time. I mean, we can and probably will because that's how the world works, but we really should not. We should hold people and businesses accountable for their actions and this situation is clear.
As a community and society we should strive to make a better experience for everyone and we should expect the industry's leaders (such as FJ) to keep high standards of transparency, fairness and even morality. What we should take as granted is the legality, so I'll just finish with the following:

FJ can (and did) decide to void his ticket according to their TOC. I do not agree with it at all, I think it is not appropriate behavior and I think it is borderline a criminal act. It is also an industry standard we have agreed to accept and we are turning a blind eye while it's not concerning us. We should not be accepting it and should be fighting it with all legal means available because it is the right thing to do. Companies with extreme revenues and huge profits should be held accountable for their mistakes. They should not be able to have a magic wand that erases it.

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

I'd also like OP to provide proof for the following:
@EpicChamp I merited your post so you can upload pictures now. Just wait until your status switches from Newbie to Jr. Member.

This then gave me a few options:

1. Cash out in full for around 0.238 BTC (0 risk and guaranteed instant reward of nearly 0.1 BTC)
2. Not cash out at all with a chance to win 0.364 BTC (100% risk and 0 guarantee of winning)
3. Cash out partially for whatever amount I wanted while still keeping the bet open (less risk and less return/reward, a nice balance of the 2)

So I decided to go with option #3 and partially cash out my bet for 0.1394 BTC to get my initial back, while keeping the remainder amount open at 2.6 odds to potentially win the full bet if De Jong won the match. That remainder amount was 50% of the bet, with a stake of 0.067 BTC left at 2.6 odds to potentially win 0.174 BTC if De Jong wins.

If what he's saying here can be proved, it means the following:
- FJ initially did the right thing, accepting cashout with them losing money
- when he cashed out 50%, they accepted his 50% to remain as a valid bet

At that point, we must observe it as 2 separate bets:
- bet A (50% of the amount) was cashed out early for profit
- bet B (50% of the amount) is a separate bet - that can be voided according to TOC but must be refunded if voided, no matter what happened earlier with bet A.

My opinion is that, as a bare minimum, the stake must be returned to the player. If he can prove what he's saying, though.

[MI6]

This has been going on for a while now. The truth has long been brought out by Fortunejack, right? It seems to me that facts are fairly easy to get to the table based on the general terms and conditions.
I get the idea that we now keep turning in a vice circle.

[EpicChamp]

Ths is turning out to be a really complicated case. There are 2 sides to it, we can discuss about morality and about legality.

Morally - FJ is in the wrong from the start. If I own a webshop and offer laptops for 40 euros, if I receive payment for a laptop, I simply have to sell it for 40 euros. It was my mistake to begin with. Same as bookies, they have to be responsible for the odds they are offering. Morally speaking his bet should be paid out in full - all the bets that are accepted on all the betting platforms should.
The problem is that they all work the same. It's not just FortuneJack, it's every bookie in the business. Their TOC basically says that they can do what they want and you have to accept it if you want to bet there.
Morality does not equal responsibility though - it just adds to a company's status among its customers. I'm pretty sure FJ will lose more money in lost revenue from some members who won't be betting there anymore than they would have if they admitted their mistake and paid out the bet - but it's their choice and morality is something a company can decide on. You can either be better to your customers or drain them for more money.

Legally I'm nowhere near educated enough to provide anything meaningful to the discussion. I *feel* he would win in court, based on multiple cases like these I'm aware of. There are a lot of possible complications though, because every country has their own legislative when it comes to cases like these and what was decided in Spain would probably not be decided in USA or Germany or wherever. Companies like these often have gaming licences in obscure countries and it can be hard to sue. Legality does equal responsibility though - that's why more and more people seek justice in court - most of them win as well.

There is no conspiracy here, shit happens. Nothing lost, nothing gained - move on.

Personally, it all comes to this and for me this is simply not acceptable. It is a business, OP did lose part of his effective balance and we cannot make it go away because FJ is here a long time. I mean, we can and probably will because that's how the world works, but we really should not. We should hold people and businesses accountable for their actions and this situation is clear.
As a community and society we should strive to make a better experience for everyone and we should expect the industry's leaders (such as FJ) to keep high standards of transparency, fairness and even morality. What we should take as granted is the legality, so I'll just finish with the following:

FJ can (and did) decide to void his ticket according to their TOC. I do not agree with it at all, I think it is not appropriate behavior and I think it is borderline a criminal act. It is also an industry standard we have agreed to accept and we are turning a blind eye while it's not concerning us. We should not be accepting it and should be fighting it with all legal means available because it is the right thing to do. Companies with extreme revenues and huge profits should be held accountable for their mistakes. They should not be able to have a magic wand that erases it.

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

I'd also like OP to provide proof for the following:
@EpicChamp I merited your post so you can upload pictures now. Just wait until your status switches from Newbie to Jr. Member.

This then gave me a few options:

1. Cash out in full for around 0.238 BTC (0 risk and guaranteed instant reward of nearly 0.1 BTC)
2. Not cash out at all with a chance to win 0.364 BTC (100% risk and 0 guarantee of winning)
3. Cash out partially for whatever amount I wanted while still keeping the bet open (less risk and less return/reward, a nice balance of the 2)

So I decided to go with option #3 and partially cash out my bet for 0.1394 BTC to get my initial back, while keeping the remainder amount open at 2.6 odds to potentially win the full bet if De Jong won the match. That remainder amount was 50% of the bet, with a stake of 0.067 BTC left at 2.6 odds to potentially win 0.174 BTC if De Jong wins.

If what he's saying here can be proved, it means the following:
- FJ initially did the right thing, accepting cashout with them losing money
- when he cashed out 50%, they accepted his 50% to remain as a valid bet

At that point, we must observe it as 2 separate bets:
- bet A (50% of the amount) was cashed out early for profit
- bet B (50% of the amount) is a separate bet - that can be voided according to TOC but must be refunded if voided, no matter what happened earlier with bet A.

My opinion is that, as a bare minimum, the stake must be returned to the player. If he can prove what he's saying, though.

The only proof I can show you to prove that I had ~50% of the initial bet remaining at 0.0672 BTC @ 2.6 odds is a screenshot of my bet. I am trying to upload it but I'm not sure how to add any URL as it's just a screenshot.

Beyond that, I did not take screenshots at the time of these 3 options, because how was I supposed to know this mess was going to happen and that they were not going to honor my winning amount & cancel the bet right before the match was about to start? That was the last thing on my mind and I never expected this to happen, esp from such a "reputable" bookie like FortuneJack that's been around for such a long time.

But I 100% guarantee you that this was the case.

In fact, funny enough I just looked back and came across the paper that I used at the time to help me make a decision on what I should do in this case. And according to my paper at the time, the amount I could have earned in full may have been even greater than 0.238 BTC, but rather 0.26873 BTC instead - an extra 0.0373 BTC had I cashed out in full.

If I can figure out how to upload an image on here, I can show you a photo of this paper which also shows exactly that if I cash out for ~140 mBTC (it was actually below that at 139. something, but I rounded it up), I would earn 174.36 mBTC if I win the bet. If you do the math, this is the exact equivalent to a stake of 0.067 BTC at 2.6 odds.

The other thing I was thinking of doing was cashing out 100 mBTC instead (40 mBTC less than what I ended up choosing), and in return would have in fact kept 168.73 mBTC open (in total, or 64.896 mBTC @ 2.6 odds - instead of 67.2 mBTC @ 2.6 odds) for a chance to win 228.54 mBTC instead. I can assure you I would not be coming up with these random numbers out of the blue, and that this is the exact option I was voluntarily given by FJ the evening before the match, which is 100% in accordance with their own rules since they're the ones who gave me this option.

This is literally documented in my notes and it matches everything perfectly with what actually happened and how much I was supposed to make if FJ hadn't canceled my bet right before the match was about to start.

This has been going on for a while now. The truth has long been brought out by Fortunejack, right? It seems to me that facts are fairly easy to get to the table based on the general terms and conditions.
I get the idea that we now keep turning in a vice circle.

No, beyond just morally & ethically - even based on the general terms & conditions they should have never canceled this bet to begin with, much like no other betting site canceled it for their users either.

They basically just cancelled it for me & no one else, and kept this match open for betting before and even during the match. According to any gmabling TOC, that is against the rules and not allowed.

And read above exactly why this was not a technical error and not even a massive drop of odds either. Change of odds happen all the time in tennis and other sports, and bets never get canceled because of that alone.

If they have any kind of respect to their users and even a slight sense of goodwill, they will not only return my stake back (which is an absolute must) - but also count my bet as a regular win just like they should have done 2 months ago and much like every other gambling site did as well at the time for anyone who bet on De Jong to win.



[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[FortuneJack]

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

[EpicChamp]

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

Oh really, is that so Tornlike? The remaining stake wasn't kept on your side?

Then where exactly did it go, just magically disappeared out of thin air after you randomly canceled my bet for no apparent reason?

Let me remind you again that you voluntarily gave me the option to either cash out in full the day before for 0.2687 BTC or do a partial cashout for any amount or % I wanted. And I decided to cash out for 50% and keep the other 50% open. This is all in accordance to your own rules and is 100% fair.

This was your decision to allow me to do this, I did not cheat your system or hack your site/this bet in any way to do my 50% partial cashout, and in the end I had 0.0672 BTC left at 2.6 odds to win 0.1747 BTC. Then right before the match was about to start - you decided to bend the rules in your favor, cancel my bet super late for no valid reason, and then had the audacity to also keep my remaining stake to yourself as well.

Do you really think this is fair or ethical in any way?

I mean why did you offer me this option in the first place then? What was the point of giving me the choice of doing a partial cashout if I was going to lose my full remaining stake whether my player wins, loses OR the bet gets canceled for whatever reason?

In order words, no matter what would end up happening afterward (in this match or bet), I would end up losing my entire stake of 0.0672 BTC with you keeping it all to yourself - why is that? Do you really think this is right to do or makes any sense?

Because in that case, I would have simply cashed out everything in full for 0.2687 BTC and been done with it; and avoided any risk of losing my BTC from not only a scenario of my player losing, but also in the case of you canceling this bet.

[cryptofrka]

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

Hey there, thanks for taking an interest.
I don't really want to be the devil's advocate just yet, EpicChamp still needs to provide some proof for what he's saying.
Since you're not actually opposing it however, I will start from the position that the following is true:

This then gave me a few options:

1. Cash out in full for around 0.238 BTC (0 risk and guaranteed instant reward of nearly 0.1 BTC)
2. Not cash out at all with a chance to win 0.364 BTC (100% risk and 0 guarantee of winning)
3. Cash out partially for whatever amount I wanted while still keeping the bet open (less risk and less return/reward, a nice balance of the 2)

So I decided to go with option #3 and partially cash out my bet for 0.1394 BTC to get my initial back, while keeping the remainder amount open at 2.6 odds to potentially win the full bet if De Jong won the match. That remainder amount was 50% of the bet, with a stake of 0.067 BTC left at 2.6 odds to potentially win 0.174 BTC if De Jong wins.

Can you confirm or deny that?

If that is true however, FJ offered him to cash out. If he cashed out in full, you would let him withdraw it all, agreed? Because that is what you offered him.
He did not cash out all, but a portion - which was also offered from your side - if what he's saying is true. At that point, what he already withdrew becomes irrelevant because he used your offer to cover his investment. He withdrew the deposited amount and kept the rest on your site, using it as 'another' bet, although still a part of the same one, only in a lower percentage.
Let's ignore the fact that you cancelled the bet, which I'm sure you can according to TOC, but the fact is that the bet he made with the remainder of his initial bet is his money - not FJ's.

Actual cost of the bet was returned to him only because he chose it when he chose the % of the bet he wanted to cash out earlier. He could have chosen 20% or 80% as well - then these numbers would not match.
It is normal that it looks as a cost from your side in your system because his winnings are bigger than his initial deposit - because you allowed him cashout of a part of his bet for profit.

I'll use placeholder values here:

Player invests 10 mbtc on odds 2.50, his potential winnings are 25 mbtc. The bookie realizes they made a mistake with the odds and offer the package that EpicChamp says he received, with instant casout of 20mbtc as a possibility.
Player still has 10mbtc value. He can choose to have 10 while keeping the bet open. If he chooses that, in this case when the bet was cancelled later, he would get his initial stake of 10mbtc back.
Player can also choose to instantly take the offer of cashout and take 20 mbtc. Then, you'd have cost in your system as well - because he withdrew more than he deposited - because he fairly cashed out and won the ticket with lower odds.
Player chose option 3 however, and used 5mbtc of his money to receive 10mbtc from FJ. He withdrew that. 5 remaining mbtc were kept as a bet, that part of his initial 10mbtc is still his stake and when the bet was voided, his stake should be returned.
In this case player actually has 15 mbtc on a 10 mbtc deposit, because the difference of 5 mbtc comes from partially cashing out before the bet was voided altogether.

For all this to mean anything though, he has to prove receiving the offer mentioned a few times already.

[Hhampuz]

If that is true however, FJ offered him to cash out. If he cashed out in full, you would let him withdraw it all, agreed? Because that is what you offered him.

I doubt that would ever happen, due to the fashion that he gained the balance it would probably be handled similarly to how a bug in a slot game or similar would.

[FortuneJack]

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

Oh really, is that so Tornlike? The remaining stake wasn't kept on your side?

Then where exactly did it go, just magically disappeared out of thin air after you randomly canceled my bet for no apparent reason?

Let me remind you again that you voluntarily gave me the option to either cash out in full the day before for 0.2687 BTC or do a partial cashout for any amount or % I wanted. And I decided to cash out for 50% and keep the other 50% open. This is all in accordance to your own rules and is 100% fair.

This was your decision to allow me to do this, I did not cheat your system or hack your site/this bet in any way to do my 50% partial cashout, and in the end I had 0.0672 BTC left at 2.6 odds to win 0.1747 BTC. Then right before the match was about to start - you decided to bend the rules in your favor, cancel my bet super late for no valid reason, and then had the audacity to also keep my remaining stake to yourself as well.

Do you really think this is fair or ethical in any way?

I mean why did you offer me this option in the first place then? What was the point of giving me the choice of doing a partial cashout if I was going to lose my full remaining stake whether my player wins, loses OR the bet gets canceled for whatever reason?

In order words, no matter what would end up happening afterward (in this match or bet), I would end up losing my entire stake of 0.0672 BTC with you keeping it all to yourself - why is that? Do you really think this is right to do or makes any sense?

Because in that case, I would have simply cashed out everything in full for 0.2687 BTC and been done with it; and avoided any risk of losing my BTC from not only a scenario of my player losing, but also in the case of you canceling this bet.

-
Let me once again clarify what would be happening in case you choosing the option of cashing out in full.

Either way, the withdrawal would not be accepted as our official odds provider, betradar, strictly directed us to cancel the winning amounts and remain the account with the initial stake you had before placing the bet. You've lost nothing, not to say you intentionally using the technical error of the provider to maximize the possible winnings - going for the partial cashout was the only way for you to go.

[FortuneJack]

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

Hey there, thanks for taking an interest.
I don't really want to be the devil's advocate just yet, EpicChamp still needs to provide some proof for what he's saying.
Since you're not actually opposing it however, I will start from the position that the following is true:

This then gave me a few options:

1. Cash out in full for around 0.238 BTC (0 risk and guaranteed instant reward of nearly 0.1 BTC)
2. Not cash out at all with a chance to win 0.364 BTC (100% risk and 0 guarantee of winning)
3. Cash out partially for whatever amount I wanted while still keeping the bet open (less risk and less return/reward, a nice balance of the 2)

So I decided to go with option #3 and partially cash out my bet for 0.1394 BTC to get my initial back, while keeping the remainder amount open at 2.6 odds to potentially win the full bet if De Jong won the match. That remainder amount was 50% of the bet, with a stake of 0.067 BTC left at 2.6 odds to potentially win 0.174 BTC if De Jong wins.

Can you confirm or deny that?

If that is true however, FJ offered him to cash out. If he cashed out in full, you would let him withdraw it all, agreed? Because that is what you offered him.
He did not cash out all, but a portion - which was also offered from your side - if what he's saying is true. At that point, what he already withdrew becomes irrelevant because he used your offer to cover his investment. He withdrew the deposited amount and kept the rest on your site, using it as 'another' bet, although still a part of the same one, only in a lower percentage.
Let's ignore the fact that you cancelled the bet, which I'm sure you can according to TOC, but the fact is that the bet he made with the remainder of his initial bet is his money - not FJ's.

Actual cost of the bet was returned to him only because he chose it when he chose the % of the bet he wanted to cash out earlier. He could have chosen 20% or 80% as well - then these numbers would not match.
It is normal that it looks as a cost from your side in your system because his winnings are bigger than his initial deposit - because you allowed him cashout of a part of his bet for profit.

I'll use placeholder values here:

Player invests 10 mbtc on odds 2.50, his potential winnings are 25 mbtc. The bookie realizes they made a mistake with the odds and offer the package that EpicChamp says he received, with instant casout of 20mbtc as a possibility.
Player still has 10mbtc value. He can choose to have 10 while keeping the bet open. If he chooses that, in this case when the bet was cancelled later, he would get his initial stake of 10mbtc back.
Player can also choose to instantly take the offer of cashout and take 20 mbtc. Then, you'd have cost in your system as well - because he withdrew more than he deposited - because he fairly cashed out and won the ticket with lower odds.
Player chose option 3 however, and used 5mbtc of his money to receive 10mbtc from FJ. He withdrew that. 5 remaining mbtc were kept as a bet, that part of his initial 10mbtc is still his stake and when the bet was voided, his stake should be returned.
In this case player actually has 15 mbtc on a 10 mbtc deposit, because the difference of 5 mbtc comes from partially cashing out before the bet was voided altogether.

For all this to mean anything though, he has to prove receiving the offer mentioned a few times already.

-
All good - we're here to discuss and make the right decision.

As stated above, the cashout system offered him the option (it made the mistake as there was no signal from the betradar of the mistakenly provided odds - once we received the notification, we immediately took the action), as there's no way for us to manually check every single bet ongoing onto the website.

No matter what the user would choose, we would still require him to wait for the confirmation phrase and withdrawal would not go through.

[FortuneJack]

We have to mention the fact that EpicChamp was not the only user placing the bet.

To be true, another player of FortuneJack had the stake placed onto the same match, but indeed it was made after correcting the odds.

Of course, we didn't cancel his bet, nor nulled the balance. So the OP stating the fact that we deliberately took the action against him is nonsense. All players are treated the same way as there's no purpose for us to come out against a certain personality.

[EpicChamp]

What FJ should not be able to do in any case whatsoever is to keep his stake for themselves. That is a criminal act for sure and it can be branded as theft, pure and simple. If there is a section in FJ's TOC that states that they can keep the stake for themselves, I'd like to see it in writing and I'm asking them to provide it.

Hello @cryptofrka, thanks for showing your interest in the on-going case.


Can you clarify bit more what you mean by saying us keeping the stake for ourselves?

The stake he left onto the bet was annulled, not kept in any way on our side.

As the actual cost of the bet (the first stake placed onto the position) was given back to the customer, there's no another $ amount stored within the system - everything else is a cost on our end. So I can say that none of the user's funds have been confiscated or legally obtained by FJ.


-
Tornike

Oh really, is that so Tornlike? The remaining stake wasn't kept on your side?

Then where exactly did it go, just magically disappeared out of thin air after you randomly canceled my bet for no apparent reason?

Let me remind you again that you voluntarily gave me the option to either cash out in full the day before for 0.2687 BTC or do a partial cashout for any amount or % I wanted. And I decided to cash out for 50% and keep the other 50% open. This is all in accordance to your own rules and is 100% fair.

This was your decision to allow me to do this, I did not cheat your system or hack your site/this bet in any way to do my 50% partial cashout, and in the end I had 0.0672 BTC left at 2.6 odds to win 0.1747 BTC. Then right before the match was about to start - you decided to bend the rules in your favor, cancel my bet super late for no valid reason, and then had the audacity to also keep my remaining stake to yourself as well.

Do you really think this is fair or ethical in any way?

I mean why did you offer me this option in the first place then? What was the point of giving me the choice of doing a partial cashout if I was going to lose my full remaining stake whether my player wins, loses OR the bet gets canceled for whatever reason?

In order words, no matter what would end up happening afterward (in this match or bet), I would end up losing my entire stake of 0.0672 BTC with you keeping it all to yourself - why is that? Do you really think this is right to do or makes any sense?

Because in that case, I would have simply cashed out everything in full for 0.2687 BTC and been done with it; and avoided any risk of losing my BTC from not only a scenario of my player losing, but also in the case of you canceling this bet.

-
Let me once again clarify what would be happening in case you choosing the option of cashing out in full.

Either way, the withdrawal would not be accepted as our official odds provider, betradar, strictly directed us to cancel the winning amounts and remain the account with the initial stake you had before placing the bet. You've lost nothing, not to say you intentionally using the technical error of the provider to maximize the possible winnings - going for the partial cashout was the only way for you to go.

Why do you keep on pointing fingers and blaming other people/organizations for YOUR mistake? It is your site and you are 100% responsible for placing these odds and making them official to everyone on your site to bet on. Whether you come up with the odds yourself or someone else provides them to you, I can care less as the user. To me you're both the same company and since this your site & not theirs, you are 100% responsible for the odds you decide to post & provide to your users. Stop blaming other people for giving you the "wrong" odds, and start taking responsibility for your own actions & decisions.

And while this betrader company may have given you the wrong odds initially, it was you who kept slowly dropping these odds by 0.2 units every 30 minutes in the first 2-3 hours when this line went up. This proves that this was not a "technical" error or an "accident" like you claim that it was - it was 100% intentional. Because if this was such a clear/obvious "technical" error or accident - you would have noticed it, frozen, and changed the odds right away - not 2-3 hours later.

As I said many times, I can give you 10+ reasons why his opponent could have been the favorite to win this match. To me, this was a very even match without any clear favorites, with both players having equal chances of winning, so I chose to bet on De Jong because he was posted with better odds. This happens all the time and is not the first or last time something like this occurs where a user might think the match is even, but for some reason 1 player is given better odds than the other, so he chooses to bet on the one with better odds.

And then it was you, not them, who decided to wrongfully cancel my bet 1-2 hours before the match was about to start when not a single other bookie canceled it for their users - and I know this for a fact because I have a friend who also bet on De Jong at 2.8-3.0 odds and he won the bet in full without any problems or cancelations in advance.

They might "suggest" you to do it because they made some mistake, but at the end of the day it is 100% your decision to make - not theirs. And you cannot cancel a bet for 1 person and not for others for the same match just because someone has slightly different odds.

[EpicChamp]

We have to mention the fact that EpicChamp was not the only user placing the bet.

To be true, another player of FortuneJack had the stake placed onto the same match, but indeed it was made after correcting the odds.

Of course, we didn't cancel his bet, nor nulled the balance. So the OP stating the fact that we deliberately took the action against him is nonsense. All players are treated the same way as there's no purpose for us to come out against a certain personality.

HA! This proves my point!

So you decide to cancel this bet only for me and not to him because I had different odds? And you think this is ok or allowed to do?

Do you realize how many times odds change before a match or game is about to start, and different people can have completely different odds going in? And in these situations bets are never canceled for ANYONE?

For example, let's take a Djokovic vs Zverev match. Djokovic is first posted at 1.4 to win and Zverev is 2.6. Then 2 hours later Djokovic drops to 1.25 and Zverev goes up to 3.4. And few hours later Djokovic drops to 1.15 and Zverev goes up to 5.0.

Do you think it's fair for those people who bet on Zverev initially at 2.6, when now there are people who got him at 5.0 a few hours later? No, it may not be fair - but as a bookie, you're not going to cancel this bet for them or anyone because of that (or vice versa for those who bet on Djokovic at different times).

The SAME thing applies to my situation.

My point is odds always change and everyone gets in different odds, but you cannot just cancel the bet for 1 person with X odds and NOT cancel it for another person with Y odds. Only if there is an actual problem with the match itself or someone gets injured and it's not played out in full.

[FortuneJack]

And while this betrader company may have given you the wrong odds initially, it was you who kept slowly dropping these odds by 0.2 units every 30 minutes in the first 2-3 hours when this line went up. This proves that this was not a "technical" error or an "accident" like you claim that it was - it was 100% intentional.

-
Kindly asking you not to mislead the community once again by stating that we cancelled the bet intentionally.

Once again attaching the screenshot provided by a partner company of ours, that showcases the mistakenly shown odds at specific timeframes.



You've been continually shilling the ideas that you think is right without providing any proofs/data, whatsoever. To make the right decision, the community needs to see the process going on both of the ends. We would be more than welcome if your statement was fully backed by some data and analysis, all the comments made by you is written emotionally without any context and only points out to the pure scam.

FortuneJack, as the crypto-driven and supported casino/sportsbook, has never had the intention of stealing player's funds, in case making the mistake, we would be taking the responsibility and givings credits back to you, but it's not the case as for now.

[EpicChamp]

And while this betrader company may have given you the wrong odds initially, it was you who kept slowly dropping these odds by 0.2 units every 30 minutes in the first 2-3 hours when this line went up. This proves that this was not a "technical" error or an "accident" like you claim that it was - it was 100% intentional.

-
Kindly asking you not to mislead the community once again by stating that we cancelled the bet intentionally.

Once again attaching the screenshot provided by a partner company of ours, that showcases the mistakenly shown odds at specific timeframes.



You've been continually shilling the ideas that you think is right without providing any proofs/data, whatsoever. To make the right decision, the community needs to see the process going on both of the ends. We would be more than welcome if your statement was fully backed by some data and analysis, all the comments made by you is written emotionally without any context and only points out to the pure scam.

FortuneJack, as the crypto-driven and supported casino/sportsbook, has never had the intention of stealing player's funds, in case making the mistake, we would be taking the responsibility and givings credits back to you, but it's not the case as for now.

Wait a second - so are you saying that you did NOT keep slowly dropping the odds from 3.0+ every ~30mins by 0.2 units for 2-3 hours until you reached & stopped at 2.6 before you completely changed the odds?

Is that what you're trying to say?

[FortuneJack]

We have to mention the fact that EpicChamp was not the only user placing the bet.

To be true, another player of FortuneJack had the stake placed onto the same match, but indeed it was made after correcting the odds.

Of course, we didn't cancel his bet, nor nulled the balance. So the OP stating the fact that we deliberately took the action against him is nonsense. All players are treated the same way as there's no purpose for us to come out against a certain personality.

HA! This proves my point!

So you decide to cancel this bet only for me and not to him because I had different odds? And you think this is ok or allowed to do?

Do you realize how many times odds change before a match or game is about to start, and different people can have completely different odds going in? And in these situations bets are never canceled for ANYONE?

For example, let's take a Djokovic vs Zverev match. Djokovic is first posted at 1.4 to win and Zverev is 2.6. Then 2 hours later Djokovic drops to 1.25 and Zverev goes up to 3.4. And few hours later Djokovic drops to 1.15 and Zverev goes up to 5.0.

Do you think it's fair for those people who bet on Zverev initially at 2.6, when now there are people who got him at 5.0 a few hours later? No, it may not be fair - but as a bookie, you're not going to cancel this bet for them or anyone because of that (or vice versa for those who bet on Djokovic at different times).

The SAME thing applies to my situation.

My point is odds always change and everyone gets in different odds, but you cannot just cancel the bet for 1 person with X odds and NOT cancel it for another person with Y odds. Only if there is an actual problem with the match itself or someone gets injured and it's not played out in full.

-
Odds to change naturally from time to time.

But the provider dropping the mistakenly placed odds from an unrealistic rate to the real one is different from what you're saying.

We will be patiently waiting to receive more feedback from the community - as it's the case we pay attention to and would love to be treated rightfully.

[EpicChamp]

We have to mention the fact that EpicChamp was not the only user placing the bet.

To be true, another player of FortuneJack had the stake placed onto the same match, but indeed it was made after correcting the odds.

Of course, we didn't cancel his bet, nor nulled the balance. So the OP stating the fact that we deliberately took the action against him is nonsense. All players are treated the same way as there's no purpose for us to come out against a certain personality.

HA! This proves my point!

So you decide to cancel this bet only for me and not to him because I had different odds? And you think this is ok or allowed to do?

Do you realize how many times odds change before a match or game is about to start, and different people can have completely different odds going in? And in these situations bets are never canceled for ANYONE?

For example, let's take a Djokovic vs Zverev match. Djokovic is first posted at 1.4 to win and Zverev is 2.6. Then 2 hours later Djokovic drops to 1.25 and Zverev goes up to 3.4. And few hours later Djokovic drops to 1.15 and Zverev goes up to 5.0.

Do you think it's fair for those people who bet on Zverev initially at 2.6, when now there are people who got him at 5.0 a few hours later? No, it may not be fair - but as a bookie, you're not going to cancel this bet for them or anyone because of that (or vice versa for those who bet on Djokovic at different times).

The SAME thing applies to my situation.

My point is odds always change and everyone gets in different odds, but you cannot just cancel the bet for 1 person with X odds and NOT cancel it for another person with Y odds. Only if there is an actual problem with the match itself or someone gets injured and it's not played out in full.

-
Odds to change naturally from time to time.

But the provider dropping the mistakenly placed odds from an unrealistic rate to the real one is different from what you're saying.

We will be patiently waiting to receive more feedback from the community - as it's the case we pay attention to and would love to be treated rightfully.

It was NOT an unrealistic rate at all.

Once again, for the 100th time, I can give you 10+ different reasons why it would make perfect sense for his opponent to be the 1.4-1.5 favorite to win this match. For example, he's 5 years older, more experienced at challengers, and has a higher career ranking than De Jong.

There are many factors that can easily lead to him being the favorite to win this match, and at the time it did not seem like a mistake at all - especially when you kept slowly changing the odds over a 2-3 hour time period without any major changes.

To me this was a very even match and was anybody's game to win, and the 2nd set proved to be very competitive too. Had Altmirano held his serve from 4-5 down, this could have been 5-5 and he would have had a good chance to win the 2nd set and play a 3rd where anything could have happened.

Neither De Jong nor his opponent was a superior player to win, and neither should have been given 1.3 odds of winning in my opinion. I do not understand or agree with why you chose to do that & post either of them at these odds, but it's not up to me to decide.

But one thing I definitely do not agree with is you claiming it was a "technical" error or an accident when it clearly wasn't, because everything was done intentionally. Therefore, the bet should have never been canceled to begin with, and I deserve to win my bet in full (and whether I cashed anything out the day before or not doesn't matter).

Anyways, I'd love to see what other people in the community have to say also.

P.S. In this case anytime odds change against your favor, you might as well just always get your odd provider to claim it to be a "mistake" as an excuse, and then proceed to cancel the affected bet only to people with better odds to minimize your risk/potential loss. Is that something you always do when a player's odd change? If not, then why did you do this against me? How is that possibly fair or right in any way? It is completely unacceptable and goes against fair play.