Scammed by Trustdice (Account banned and money confiscated)

[Coinbox1]

Or every other threads, they're handled in similar fashion where --as said above-- you asked for their account details and then informing us why'd they got banned. So why is this case different?

We did not treat this one differently from the other cases. Most of the other cases completed the KYC before they found this forum so the biggest difference is that the OP here never finished the KYC. OP's refusal to KYC prevents us from concluding whether or not this was abuse, and from fully examining how the abuse was done. As the OP continues to make excuses to avoid KYC, we suspect the real reason is not what he said it was. It could be a deliberate smart move.

We have seen abusers buying fake KYC or paid KYC and it takes time to find the right KYC vendor. And when that's needed, buying time could be necessary.

Sorry that I have to not spend more hours on this single thread. We look forward to resolving our differences on AskGambler, as 2 sides both agreed.

Thank you and we will remain committed to open, transparent and meaningful communication with the Bitcointalk community.

TrustDice Team

[1715267317]

1715267317

[1715267317]

1715267317

[1715267317]

1715267317

[holydarkness]

Or every other threads, they're handled in similar fashion where --as said above-- you asked for their account details and then informing us why'd they got banned. So why is this case different?

We did not treat this one differently from the other cases. Most of the other cases completed the KYC before they found this forum so the biggest difference is that the OP here never finished the KYC. OP's refusal to KYC prevents us from concluding whether or not this was abuse, and from fully examining how the abuse was done. As the OP continues to make excuses to avoid KYC, we suspect the real reason is not what he said it was. It could be a deliberate smart move.

We have seen abusers buying fake KYC or paid KYC and it takes time to find the right KYC vendor. And when that's needed, buying time could be necessary.

Sorry that I have to not spend more hours on this single thread. We look forward to resolving our differences on AskGambler, as 2 sides both agreed.

Thank you and we will remain committed to open, transparent and meaningful communication with the Bitcointalk community.

TrustDice Team

I'll quote myself for reference of my insight on OP's offer for KYC at the very beginning of the issue --i.e. during live chat with your agent--,

[...]
I'm not saying OP is right and you're scamming them, there's even a possibility that they're a multi-acc abuser and the KYC they offered is a bluff, or fake ones. [...]

by it, I mean as in OP actually didn't want to do KYC, so they did a reverse psychology where they offered it in hope that your team will said it isn't necessary, or if your team agreed on the offer, they already had a fake KYC prepared.

But for that very same reason I can't agree on the rest of your post about they're trying to buy time by procuring reasons to refuse KYC. I'd like to point out that they offered to perform KYC again, which you failed to address and lead to the situation where it further strengthen OP's doubt of your platform's trustworthiness and ultimately reluctant to perform KYC.

Hello Poika5,

I learned from our Compliance team that a KYC request has been sent to you. Please kindly complete the KYC procedure via email ASAP.

Thank you
TrustDice Team

1. The reason for my ban / Or A public apology from Trustdice representative.
2. Will you unban me if i finish the KYC?

Please kindly answer ASAP.

Suppose that the scenario is true where OP tried a fake KYC, if they didn't have fake KYC ready for disposal and tried to buy time, they won't try offering it right away the second time. It is quite logical to assume that they offered because they had it ready. By this basis, the idea that they tried to buy time to look for fake KYC can somewhat be eliminated.

And since we're considering a scenario where OP faked a KYC or tried to buy time, it'll only be fair if we also consider a scenario where you tried to grasping at straws by asking for KYC and will later on claimed it's fake¹, thus OP account would be frozen for that reason. I'd like to point out from the neighboring thread a very nice example where you seems to try to... jump at slightest possible "straw" when the chance offered itself,

Hello everyone,

As OP has publicly admitted, he placed bets after the game ends when the outcome of the game becomes available.

Yes, I placed this bet at the end of the match

[...]

let's admit, it is not that difficult to conclude that the OP of that thread had a language barrier and tried to say something that had a different meaning, especially as they've mentioned their mothertongue is not English on their opening post --by the way, Laki21000, this is one of what I wanted to comment that I referred on my previous post-- and to have an official professional representative of a professional platform easily misunderstood the real meaning of this very simple statement, it'll be quite legit for OP to further questioning your trustworthiness... IMO.


OP, how long has it been since you contacted and submitted your situation to AskGambler? 5 days? 6? Have you got any reply from them? I can't see your case has been escalated and displayed on their page, I thought on previous email they said it's about 48-96 hours?

Did your case got dismissed or something like with CasinoGuru? Can you please update if you had any further communication with their representative?


Edit: to respond OP's reply below and add context to my paragraph above, I can see them now, it's recently posted and wasn't there a couple hours ago when I checked their page.

¹Note that it is not an unlikely scenario, in a recent case I am attending --that I wont mention which-- a platform counter-accused a fake KYC amongst other things although the originality and legitimacy of the documents can be verified by CasinoGuru.

[Poika5]

OP, how long has it been since you contacted and submitted your situation to AskGambler? 5 days? 6? Have you got any reply from them? I can't see your case has been escalated and displayed on their page, I thought on previous email they said it's about 48-96 hours?

Did your case got dismissed or something like with CasinoGuru? Can you please update if you had any further communication with their representative?

Sorry, it took a little more time than expected.
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/trustdice-casino-account-banned-and-money-confiscated

and to have an official professional representative of a professional platform easily misunderstood the real meaning of this very simple statement, it'll be quite legit for OP to further questioning your trustworthiness... IMO.

Honestly at this point I dont even know if they are scammers or the most incompetent casino in the world.

[Pmalek]

Yes, I have, and although I wanted to comment on one or two things that I found on their replies, I saw that Pmalek is already present there. They're more than capable to help us see the outcome of your case, which is why I refrained from commenting there.

I just noticed you mentioned me here. Always feel free to share your thoughts. 4 eyes are better than 2. One person can see something the others don't. I haven't looked at Poika5's case. It's really time-consuming reading and trying to concentrate on all these different threads at the same time. And I see this one is already 3 pages long. Maybe I will get to it later. Judging from the few posts I have read from Poika5 in Laki21000's scam accusation thread, he seems to know what he is talking about and might be able to work out a satisfactory solution if he keeps that up.       

[Poika5]

I would like to talk about Trustpilot reviews.

(This picture is from their homepage)

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/trustdice.win
How does Trust Dice have 1793 reviews on Trustpilot? They got their first review back in 2020 march, and since then they been getting 1.76 reviews per day? Thats laughable, they are getting more reviews than the biggest Casinos in the world like Bet365.

Sportsbet.io - 194 reviews
Roobet - 891 reviews
Bitsler - 216 reviews

Now the funniest thing, all the fake 5 star reviews came from people who somehow live in the US.



Looks like they are buying fake reviews, and using their high TrustPilot score as a marketing tool.

Going back to your case that's being discussed --and that I've been following-- on AG, though, I think you forgot to attach a screenshot or something that you intended to give to show that you've submitted your KYC.

Looks like they found my email

We confirm that we have just received the user's KYC documents, and will look into it. If there is any internal miscommunication, we full-heartedly apologize.

Best regards,
TrustDice Team

[holydarkness]

I would like to talk about Trustpilot reviews.
[..]
Looks like they are buying fake reviews, and using their high TrustPilot score as a marketing tool.

That's because TrustPilot is not exactly a pilot of trust --yeah, lame pun, I know-- in a sense that you need to take them with a teaspoon of salt. They have a paid membership where the paying companies can utilize several "marketing tools" to "tweak" their ratings and revoke reviews, not to mention --as you said-- incentivizing user to leave fake reviews.

Read more:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/6p82me/is_trustpilot_trustworthy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/s340rf/can_trustpilot_be_trusted/
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7549909/Can-trust-Trustpilots-reviews-firms-dont-pay-it.html

Going back to your case that's being discussed --and that I've been following-- on AG, though, I think you forgot to attach a screenshot or something that you intended to give to show that you've submitted your KYC.

[holydarkness]

This post is made in response --and in a way, act as a reply-- toward Coinbox1 edited post here

[...]

Throughout this entire thread, we discussed with Mr. holydarkness about this case for days. Initially we thought he might just want to act as an unbiased arbitrator, but later we realized that he’s been deliberately misinterpreting our statements and attempted to put words in our mouth, and he has done it for 3 times in this single thread. Fearing such misinformation techniques might mislead the audience, we decide to make these public.

I LOLed. Is this your MO? When you feel attacked and cornered, you sneak past people and edited the first post --where anyone who follows the case closely would likely missed that edit-- and twisting words? Or were you... *checking my note of borrowed words from you* just a very bad reader? Or a bad marketer, in your case. Snipping sentences and statement is not an ethical practice, darling.

Here, let me help you again, just like your previous practice on marketing campaign  on the neighboring thread. Like before, the full sentence which contain a completely different meaning than what you tried to convey to the readers will be marked in italic, with key points marked in red.

The 1st time: he asked us about a clause in our T&C.

For Coinbox1, I don't think I understand the situation correctly, so please enlighten us. First, was OP's account banned because of the reason he mentioned on the quoted email --the unfair advantage-- or because they're yet to fulfill the KYC TnC?

Second, I'll assume for now that the quoted text from OP is legit and originated from your email to them, as below,

[...]

* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport/esport

[...]

Were you saying that an educated guess in your sportsbetting is not allowed? Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?

We then explained it in details to him:

Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?

(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here) Most definitely not. "personal involvement" here typically means
- the player himself or herself and individuals who are connected to the player and therefore have access to the internal info, or even able to influence the outcome of the game;
- personal presence on the field of play during the game;

18.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport or using the late bets strategy;
However this clause would most likely be triggered if you were in discussion with your old pal who is inside the team and paid him to access information that most people don't know about. The same applies if your old pal pays you to bet with his internal info. Unfortunately, crypto sports books like ours attract insider betting these days.

This is me trying to understand the situation, addressing both parties and see if I can get the feel of the situation. You gave several points of possible reason behind OP's ban, and as I am not familiar with your terms, I asked. The context of the post will be crystal clear if you didn't snip it out wherever you like.

He then claim we confirmed that OP was breaking that clause:

Thank you for the link, I've actually read and familiarize myself with them before writing my post. And although it is true that by the TnC your user are agreeing on a clause where they have to submit KYC if needed, your explanation did not exactly answered my question. But if I may infer from your seemingly deliberate vague answer, you banned their account because they had suspicious behavior --i.e. insider info-- and thus you feel you need to check their ID? Then why did your team still froze OP's account although they already offered to complete KYC?

This is simply not true. No where in our statement says it was the clause of the ban. The explanation was addresses to him for his question. Plus, in fact, we had explicitly written there that the explanation is not directly related to the case of this thread.

(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here)

We didn’t understand how he could make the mistake, and thought he might be just a very bad reader.  We had to respectfully correct him:

I am afraid there is a major misunderstanding here. As I previously stated:

(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here)

So when I discussed about insider info above, I was simply answering your question about the T&C clause related to insider info. Such explanation has no direct relevance to the OP's case, or any specific cases. It was just to explain the clause.

This is where I LOLed. Like, really laughed, not just snorting air out of my nose for funny things kinda way, a full blown laugh. I can't really decide if you attempting a smear campaign --which is an extremely detrimental for a trusted casino platform-- a really poor reader, or simply just childish and so hell bent on revenge --for what exactly does the revenge serves, I am clueless-- that you use everything you can to get to it, or if I may re-use my repeated terms while attending your cases, "grasping at straws".

I clearly asked, the statement in that sentence --if you didn't snip it out to work into your favor-- is preceded by "if I may infer" and followed by a question mark. It indicates a question, not a statement. Which then you explained as below, and I replied nicely; in italic, you deleted that part because it didn't work in your favor, again.

But that didn't stop him from misinterpreting things. The 2nd time was when he he claimed our Customer Support mentioning 1 clause means that’s the cause of the ban.

Ahh, I see. Yes, I'll openly admit that there is a major misunderstanding from my side. The way your team explained to OP on email suggested that their account is banned due to insider info --why else would you mention this point on email if that is not the reason or related at any degree to their account freezing-- and I take that it's far from it, then? OP's account is not suspected of insider info?

In doing this, he completely ignored that fact that our Customer Support mentioned 3 clauses in the email, which all could be the cause:

We regret to inform you that your TrustDice account has been banned and the withdrawal funds were confiscated, this decision was taken according to the following terms and conditions.
18.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
* we determine that you are acting in a manner that is detrimental to the conduct of our business;
* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport/esport or using the late bets strategy;
* we suspect that you have registered, manage or direct your betting activity on multiple user accounts in an attempt to hide your betting activity, bypass our set trading limits or violate any promotion Terms and Conditions;

You omitted my reply toward this post, where I openly admit I misunderstood the case and asked you for clarification. May I point it out that we ended up on that hole of misunderstanding because you kept refusing to give information --didn't have to be specific, like I said on the sentences below it, here?

The 3rd time was when he accused us of not providing reasons for the ban:

I'm not threatening you here, just giving a simple words from my observation, but by refusing to specify the reason like this, you actually cast an impression that you're the one being wrong here. Anyone reading this case would probably think like me, that if you have nothing to hide and sure that OP is an abuser, you'll be more than happy to provide --at the very least-- the reason why they're being banned. They offered you to complete KYC and you --unless you have an evidence that OP's claim and screenshot is not true-- banned them instead, and then just after the situation escalated to this forum you asked for KYC. If you ask me, it's kinda looks fishy. Lest it be too late and a flag raised and stir a lot of unnecessary inconvenience like the other case OP had in the past.

But we clearly did, and that was even directly addressed to Mr.holydarkness himself. Yet he chose to ignore it and makes false accusations:

Have you studied OP's account closely and have solid proof before freezing it or were you just ban-first-ask-later?

Prior to the ban, our Risk Management team have found substantial abnormalities surrounding the OP's account and other suspicious behaviors.

No, you did not give a clear reason behind OP's ban. You kept insisting that OP had to do KYC before you can give that piece of information out, disregarding that OP had already offered to provide KYC far before this situation escalated, which you replied by instantly banning them. OP offered to complete KYC the second time, and you ignored their question.

As the nature of this conversation gets increasing non-factual, we decide to cease engaging in this thread because this kind of conversion doesn’t align with our company policies.


With regard to the OP's accusation, as both party agreed, an AskGambler ticket was opened in case anyone wants to follow this up.


Thank you.
TrustDice Team

My statements, questions, and assumptions are based on facts given at the point of the situation, so I think the nature of the conversation is rather factual. You know what's even more factual? This:

Hey OP, Poika5, so this is how dispute usually works in so many platform, so it's just a matter of fact. The platform usually gives certain amount of time for each party to respond and provide comments or evidences against the opposing party. In AG, they gave 100 hours --if I'm not wrong-- I know that basically you're waiting for TD to verify your KYC and there's nothing that you can do until then. But since the last comment was from TD's side, the ball is in your court. As this post was made,  you have less than 25 hours to say something or the case will probably marked as clear by the system --and yes, this is my way to tell that I'm following the development of the case closely and daily, even after it moved platform.

So you might want to say something, anything, to put the ball back in TD's court.

About why they're so fast in replying your last comment there --which throws the ball to your court-- and so persistent on KYC but then took days just to verify it is... well, I can only assume, and I'll keep that assumption for myself.

[Poika5]

So you might want to say something, anything, to put the ball back in TD's court.

About why they're so fast in replying your last comment there --which throws the ball to your court-- and so persistent on KYC but then took days just to verify it is... well, I can only assume, and I'll keep that assumption for myself.

Yes, done, thanks. They are really moving at a snails pace / Wasting time.



By the way, You triggered Coinbox1 so hard that they misspelled Croatia(From the other thread, another sneaky edit):
 

[Poika5]

Update:

So after all that BS they decided to accuse of me multi-accounting:


They also accused me of having "professional knowledge", looks like Coinbox1 forgot his first post.

(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here) Most definitely not.

We found OP's account had been acting in a manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player and its various signals shall be considered abnormalities for an ordinary human player. And all of such data have been well documented.

What was that all about? Why did he imply that i used some kind of bot?

Cool and Askgamblers closed my case.

* we determine that you are acting in a manner that is detrimental to the conduct of our business;

So you banned me because i won?

* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport

All of my bets were on games that had +5k$ pregame limits in Pinnacle, so why would i place 100$ bets in Trustdice if i had some kind of inside info?

or using the late bets strategy;

Here we go again, I only had 1 or 2 live bets.

* we suspect that you have registered, manage or direct your betting activity on multiple user accounts in an attempt to hide your betting activity, bypass our set trading limits or violate any promotion Terms and Conditions;

Suspect? Great, all the other "multi-accounting" cases took you about 5 minutes to solve.

[holydarkness]

Update:

So after all that BS they decided to accuse of me multi-accounting:

[...]

To be completely fair and neutral, they've uploaded their evidences to AG, and AG determined them as a solid findings. Not sure if you can do this, but if you're sure you are being the one wronged here, maybe try asking askgambler to reopen your case by providing proof that you're not multi--acc-ing and your bets are normal.

[8rch7]

We found OP's account had been acting in a manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player and its various signals shall be considered abnormalities for an ordinary human player. And all of such data have been well documented.

What was that all about? Why did he imply that i used some kind of bot?

Seems unacceptable reason about people controlling by bot or abnormal activities in gambling platform, I sure they don't happy when have user get huge amount winning and always give difficult position for us if can't loss more in gambling.

Based on reason from Trustdice actually you have bot or some thing lack from Trustdice gambling casino, exactly they have detect your account abnormal betting and make your account suspend. I think from Trustdice casino gambling platform have valid proof for showing which one betting have been abnormal and they have giving valid reason without assumption only when finding the user have huge amount from withdrawing.

[holydarkness]

Quoting this post from OP's post on other thread to allow Coinbox1 to address their latest counter-defense

And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post

No, I just didn't want to deal with this during the holidays.

I dont know how can i prove that i didnt multi account, but i will try:
1. Im from a very small country and i bet on small/specific market, I would get caught/limited really fast if i tried to multi account.
2. Multi accounting was pointless because i had other alternatives, a few hours after i got limited on Trustdice i deposited money to Thunderpick.io, a site that uses the same sportprovider.

29. September, 100% limited from TrustDice.


29. September, Thunderpick.io deposit:

By the way, its been 3 months and my Thunderpick.io account is still not limited.


I got banned for 2 reasons:

* we determine that you are acting in a manner that is detrimental to the conduct of our business;

Winning sports bettor = detrimental to Trustdice making money.

or using the late bets strategy;

As we know Trustdice thinks that every live bet is a "late bet", and I placed 4 live NBA bets, because I still had to finish my 5x rollover(I was banned from Esports betting, so I could only bet on "normal sports").



Getting scammed feels awful, so here is a little bit of mental gymnastics:
They scammed 1700$ from me, but i helped Laki21000 get his 2100$ back.
So in a way banning me cost them 400$, which makes me happy.

Edit: to my BM, please disregard this post from my quota and consider it as an illegible post

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Now the funniest thing, all the fake 5 star reviews came from people who somehow live in the US.

Apart from the fact that they may be bought fake reviews, which I'm not going to go into, it wouldn't be unusual for them to put that in their ToS and then accept players from those countries. I think that many times the ToS are put as a façade but in day to day practice is other, I am referring in general to cryptocurrency casinos, not just this one. This is something that has been repeatedly commented on in the forum. Or that they say they will do KYC from an amount in account or wagered and then do not do it is also common.

[Pmalek]

Please kindly understand that as per our Terms & Conditions, we are under no obligation to provide excessive details to a user who's been banned for his or her violation of the T&C.

It's great to know that your operation is so transparent. A player can be banned without anyone knowing why including the player. If the player asks what they did to deserve the ban, you will send 3-4 terms and conditions violations their way and have them pick one out, or what? The reasons and rule violations you mentioned have nothing in common.

So according to the information provided here, the player may or may not have been banned for one or all of the above things:

- having insider info/receiving information from someone close to the team/league/sports.
- using multiple accounts.
- doing any activities that are against the interests of the casino (could be anything in the world).

Is this player a multi-account abuser who is also involved in late betting and has professional insider knowledge about certain sports or what is going on? Why mention insider betting if it's not directly related to this case?

So let me expand on what I already have said (The details are not mentioned to avoid jeopardizing our anti-abuse detection system) :
We found OP's account had been acting in a manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player and its various signals shall be considered abnormalities for an ordinary human player. And all of such data have been well documented.

Ordinary human player? That would then make him an unordinary human player. If he is unordinary, we are going back to the professional/insider betting patterns. Or maybe you are suspecting bot-like behavior.

You made yourself look ignorant with your claims in the other case concerning Laki where you attempted to provide proof of late bets and failed. And such an incompetent team has now investigated another case and found "abnormalities". Do I need to remind you that the "abnormalities" you found in Laki's scam accusation thread were laughable and proved your ignorance? That might be the reason why you have decided against going into details this time around because it could show that you have nothing.

@Poika5
Why are you banned from betting on Esports? Why would an honest gambler get banned from betting on an entire sport?
One more thing. When CasinoGuru rejected your complaint, they emailed you and suggested several websites that deal with sports betting-related issues. If you still think you are being wronged here, have you or do you have plans to contact some of those sites? 

I just checked the AskGamblers complaint. It's a neutral 3rd-party that hasn't given me a feeling of being biased. Their decision goes against you and this case seems pretty much closed after that. Do you have anything else to add or have you taken any other steps in the meantime?

If there is nothing else, my negative review will be changed to neutral for this casino and its forum representative, also informing the community that the casino has decided against sharing evidence or discussing scam accusations on Bitcointalk. 

[holydarkness]

Below is Coinbox1's reply in regards to the most recent development for the case. I'll gladly play an owl as they're seemingly stand by their words and refused to reply here.

Mr. holydarkness,

It is funny that you ask this now. Because right in the beginning you had been told exactly why we cannot publicly show such sensitive information.

Hi holydarkness,
[...]
However, kindly note that our updated internal policies forbid us from sharing such details in public forums, unless particularly authorized by our management and approved by the player. This is for both privacy and anti-abuse concerns. In fact, for the sake of open and transparent communication with Bitcointalk community, we had shared such details on the forum in the past, which did get us quite some compliments. However such transparency was later exploited by abusers who saw it.

So again, just so this is clear: We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours developing mechanisms to combat abusers. By publicly showing these sensitive details as evidence, the abusers lurking for abuse opportunities will figure out ways to beat our mechanism. In fact, this has happened before and we had been burnt.

As how I've stated here, I have been weighting upon this decision for a while now as OP's activities and involvement on his case seems to became more and more sporadic, as well as how they seems to put less and less effort on their case, tilting the balance of the weight more towards the validity of decision made by AG.

To be honest, it was in my sincerest hope that bumping this thread by reposting OP's defense from other thread will sparks OP's activity, as that seeems to be not the situation here, it became less and less fair to keep the tag on Coinbox1.

Don't get me wrong here, I am still in my opinion that TD's actions toward resolving disputes are more in poor side, but I have to agree that --under these recent developments and situation where OP keeps being absent-- it is not fair to keep the tag, especially considering the above defense made by TD against providing evidences, as stated on the last part of the quoted post from them, is within the realm of reasonable.

As such, the tag will be changed to neutral to serve as a reminder for this case.

[Pmalek]

As such, the tag will be changed to neutral to serve as a reminder for this case.

I will give the OP some time to see if they will respond. If not, I will do something similar. But I am going to delete my original feedback and add a neutral one linking to TrustDice's decision to not wanting to respond to scam accusations in the forum. Bitcointalk players need to know that if they run into problems with this bookmaker, they shouldn't expect to get a response in case they create a scam accusation thread. Instead, they need to include a mediator that may or may not be interested in investigating what happened depending on the case details (TOS violations, sportsbook infringements, etc.).   

[sutil]

I just read the whole story. TD succeeded in proving to Ask Gamblers banning OP is the right decision and supplied good evidence. OP says he’s innocent but he gone AWOL now.

@Pmalek you keep your negative feedback and flag although not seeing OP’s reply for 20 days. Maybe you want to take a look here?

As such, the tag will be changed to neutral to serve as a reminder for this case.

I will give the OP some time to see if they will respond. If not, I will do something similar. But I am going to delete my original feedback and add a neutral one linking to TrustDice's decision to not wanting to respond to scam accusations in the forum. Bitcointalk players need to know that if they run into problems with this bookmaker, they shouldn't expect to get a response in case they create a scam accusation thread. Instead, they need to include a mediator that may or may not be interested in investigating what happened depending on the case details (TOS violations, sportsbook infringements, etc.).   

[Pmalek]

@Pmalek you keep your negative feedback and flag although not seeing OP’s reply for 20 days. Maybe you want to take a look here?

Thanks for reminding me. OP has had plenty of time to respond if he wanted to, but he hasn't done that. The flag doesn't have enough support because other DT members withdrew it, so my support for it doesn't mean anything. Anyways, I will withdraw my support as well now. The negative feedback will be deleted and I will leave a different neutral one instead.

[Poika5]

Sorry, i was traveling with my family.

@Poika5
Why are you banned from betting on Esports? Why would an honest gambler get banned from betting on an entire sport?

By banned i meant limited, which is perfectly normal.

One more thing. When CasinoGuru rejected your complaint, they emailed you and suggested several websites that deal with sports betting-related issues. If you still think you are being wronged here, have you or do you have plans to contact some of those sites? 

None of these sites had Trustdice.

If there is nothing else, my negative review will be changed to neutral for this casino and its forum representative, also informing the community that the casino has decided against sharing evidence or discussing scam accusations on Bitcointalk.

100% fine, I understand your point of view, I would trust Askgamblers over a random Bitcointalk user as well. You and HolyDarkness have been fair and neutral, but the problem is I cant defend myself, because i don't know what i did wrong. Only reason why Laki21000 got his money back was because Coinbox1/Trustdice was dumb enough to think that every 4th quarter bet is a late bet / Or they thought that nobody would analyze Laki's bets.

TrustDice's decision to not wanting to respond to scam accusations in the forum

Rip new victims.

As how I've stated here, I have been weighting upon this decision for a while now as OP's activities and involvement on his case seems to became more and more sporadic, as well as how they seems to put less and less effort on their case, tilting the balance of the weight more towards the validity of decision made by AG.

I wasted way too much time w this case, its really not worth it for me.

I don't really care about the money, i wanted to find out if Trustdice was incompetent or blatantly scamming me. After they accused me of multi accounting, i finally got my answer. Perhaps i burned the bridge too early, but I couldn't help myself because Coinbox is such a massive scumbag.

So again, just so this is clear: We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours developing mechanisms to combat abusers. By publicly showing these sensitive details as evidence, the abusers lurking for abuse opportunities will figure out ways to beat our mechanism. In fact, this has happened before and we had been burnt.

Hes clearly talking about the casino, they are paying their provider who is taking care of their sports betting operation.

+ We already know from the other thread that nobody in Trustdice understands anything about sports betting.
+ We know that Laki21000 and Nikiton1994 were falsely banned on the same day as me.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5425888.20
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5430895.0
Like maybe hire one person who understands sports betting, i get it that +90% of your profit comes from casino but come on.


By the way i have won over +600k€ against the worlds sharpest books like Pinnacle/Betcris, so i know my fair share about sports betting, the fact that the most incompetent & scammy bookie in the world calls me abuser is laughable.

But Coinbox1, good luck banning every single winning sports bettor.

[Pmalek]

None of these sites had Trustdice.

What does that mean? They have a list of sites they "work with" regarding player appeals and unless the casino is on that list they won't help?

Only reason why Laki21000 got his money back was because Coinbox1/Trustdice was dumb enough to think that every 4th quarter bet is a late bet / Or they thought that nobody would analyze Laki's bets.

I agree with you that the forum representative Coinbox1 is an incompetent idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to sports betting, and he claimed that his staff and him were bullied by the likes of me and HolyDarkness (who he called another Croatian). Due to the stress and mental suffering they decided not to speak to this community any more. It has, of course, nothing to do with the fact they were caught lying trying to show that a player was placing bets after matches already ended. Still, the moronic nature of the casino rep doesn't warrant a negative rating from an objective point of view for something that hasn't or can't be proven.     

By the way i have won over +600k€ against the worlds sharpest books like Pinnacle/Betcris, so i know my fair share about sports betting...

I know it's none of my business, but why the hell would you go from that to something like TrustDice? If you have money to spend and you are looking for a new car, you don't go and buy a second-hand Fiat Panda from the 80's. Sadly, you did.