Coinplay CONFISCATING 291mbtc of fair NBA winnings

[GekkeBelg]

Just a reminder to everyone that's trying to defend Coinplay for some odd reason:

Coinplay agreed to use askgamblers to arbitrate.  

Askgamblers ruled against Coinplay.

Coinplay did not pay and ghosted.

There is absolutely no reason that Coinplay deserves any benefit of doubt in this situation.

I'm not defending Coinplay, in my eyes this ended up as a good lesson for both sides. Coinplay got slapped by the internet for not dealing with the issue, the player got their deposit back (regardless if they did or did not try to play the system)

What I'm trying to do though is figure out for my self what actually happened here, and it seems there's more to it.

#1. We have a Dutch player, who shouldn't be playing outside of his country, actively playing on several brands outside of his country.  
#2. That player won a larger amount through activity on several accounts, and triggered the abuser matrix.
#3. That same player got reported that he was playing with different accounts, arbitrage and so on.
#4. The operator didn't want to argue, refunded his deposit and closed his account.
#5. Even if the player could manage to somehow prove that he wasn't abusing the operator and remove all the smoke surrounding him, if KYC would be asked for, he would fail it and again only get the deposit back.

In my eyes this is not a scam situation, since the deposit was refunded, and the wins (operators money) was confiscated because of irregularities.

On the other side we have the operator, Coinplay, who just doesn't want to deal with this thing and assign resources to argue with the player publicly, so they kinda do deserve the flag as a lesson and I would definitely keep this thread alive.

At the same time, I want to note that operators sometimes get numb on this type of situations, just open up TrustPilot and type in any reputable casino, you'll see tons of 1 star reviews claiming "scam", and no one responds to them because it just costs too much resources to explain to TrustPilot how the scam went, especially when you're dealing with a user that aims to destroy you in any way possible. We had these situations on brands like Betsafe and Bet365 on a daily basis and it was hard to deal with it individually.

Curacao itself is a joke when it comes to gaming licenses and judging by the email he got, Antillephone is as well.  I know, big changes are supposedly in the works, but the only memorable action I've ever seen Curacao take is to defend 1xbit, the longest running scam casino, after they were forced into bankruptcy, and attack the one who investigated them.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Coinplay is very likely a 1xbit franchise.  

My experience is different, and if there wouldn't be for regulators, you would be playing rouge games with rouge payment providers, with scams going left and right. I am not familiar with what happened with 1xbit though, but I'll research it.

I am not allowed to say that Antillephone is a horrible licensor when they simply pass on lies from the casino they licensed? And when I ask about clarification about those lies they ignore me....coincidence huh?

No, I was not KYC verified. My passport is Dutch and my driving license is German but that is not the issue here.

You're allowed to say whatever you want, but the way you say it will either go in to your favor or against it. If you look at all my posts in your thread you'll see that I was just looking to discuss the situation, I'm not personally attacking you or claim that Coinplay did the right thing.

What the hell is going on here? Your post is so full of nonsense that I don't even know where to start.
A Dutch player who shouldn't be playing outside of his country? What does the country of birth have to do with this? I have been living in Germany for 17 years!
I won a large amount through activity on several accounts? Several? I only have one account.
I did not do any arbitrage. Coinplay never mentioned this either.
If KYC would be asked, I would fail?? Why? I am living in a perfectly legal country which is not forbidden in the Coinplay terms and have a driving license and utility bills from there.

[1714550117]

1714550117

[1714550117]

1714550117

[1714550117]

1714550117

[1714550117]

1714550117

[1714550117]

1714550117

[SirJohnVonSlotty]

What the hell is going on here? Your post is so full of nonsense that I don't even know where to start.
A Dutch player who shouldn't be playing outside of his country? What does the country of birth have to do with this? I have been living in Germany for 17 years!
I won a large amount through activity on several accounts? Several? I only have one account.
I did not do any arbitrage. Coinplay never mentioned this either.
If KYC would be asked, I would fail?? Why? I am living in a perfectly legal country which is not forbidden in the Coinplay terms and have a driving license and utility bills from there.

It's a peculiar situation, Coinplay isn't responsive, and I haven nothing smart to say anymore.

You've already did all the steps that you could, you could eventually lawyer up and go against them and their license holder if you like, as I already mentioned a few posts before, but be 100% sure that the claim is truthful before you enter that field.

[T3PR00T]

It's a peculiar situation, Coinplay isn't responsive, and I haven nothing smart to say anymore.

Whoever is behind the coinplay official account, he needs to learn to give more time when situations like this are up. Otherwise the brand will suffer even with a very weak case. This is a good example and should be a lession for all brands who are advertising on the forum.

[SirJohnVonSlotty]

It's a peculiar situation, Coinplay isn't responsive, and I haven nothing smart to say anymore.

Whoever is behind the coinplay official account, he needs to learn to give more time when situations like this are up. Otherwise the brand will suffer even with a very weak case. This is a good example and should be a lession for all brands who are advertising on the forum.

I agree with you, but from what I saw so far it's rarely the owner or CEO who is on this forum, it's mostly a lower acquisition specialist or manager that is testing the forum as a new channel to drive value, with some exceptions with the larger brands that are having a significant spend on the forum.

Even in my case the owners didn't know that bitcointalk even existed until I brought it up 5 months ago, but luckily I'm a bit higher up so I can move things quicker.

Nevertheless, the reason I'm active in this thread is because I'm curious, but at the same time it's sad to see how other operators are managing their brand, and then smaller guys like us get pulled down with them.

[John Abraham]

You are creating doubt in mind, I am sorry I removed my support from the flag you created. It looks to me the whole story was not said completely. It does not surprise me though. There are many cases where many of us were bluffed by abusive gamblers like you. They see this place is a good chance for clearing their abuse.

BitcoinGirl.Club, I am sorry, but I am asking why you think the whole story was not said. CoinPlay did not trigger KYC to GekkeBelg, and he did not have to do anything with the KYC and its related things like where he is from or similar info. Since he wasn't triggered for KYC, Sharing where he is from and where he is living is irrelevant. I feel like it was unnecessary to share those details. Everyone has their opinion, and I respect your opinion as well. But I am asking you because I Trust only three users' Judgments, and you are one of them. Do you see anything suspicious here? Help me figure out what makes you think the player is abusive and why the whole story was not said.

@GekkeBelg, Indeed, I am seeing some anger from you towards SirJohnVonSlotty. His post makes sense, and he did not guarantee that 100% of those happened. He clearly said

I'm not defending Coinplay, in my eyes this ended up as a good lesson for both sides.... ....What I'm trying to do though is figure out for my self what actually happened here, and it seems there's more to it....

@GekkeBelg, I don't see any point in talking like this, which makes you look guilty of doing something wrong.

[Pmalek]

BitcoinGirl.Club, I am sorry, but I am asking why you think the whole story was not said. CoinPlay did not trigger KYC to GekkeBelg, and he did not have to do anything with the KYC and its related things like where he is from or similar info. Since he wasn't triggered for KYC, Sharing where he is from and where he is living is irrelevant. I feel like it was unnecessary to share those details. Everyone has their opinion, and I respect your opinion as well. But I am asking you because I Trust only three users' Judgments, and you are one of them. Do you see anything suspicious here? Help me figure out what makes you think the player is abusive and why the whole story was not said.

To be fair, it wasn't BitcoinGirl.Club that mentioned OP being Dutch. It was me after seeing the latest screenshot they posted that had both German and Dutch text. I know that Netherlands, together with countries like France, the UK, USA, and some others are generally restricted territories on Curacao licenses. BitcoinGirl.Club might have just acted on that information.

I haven't followed the developments of this case from the beginning to confidently pass judgement.

[TwitchySeal]

You are creating doubt in mind, I am sorry I removed my support from the flag you created.  

You see coinplay agreed to use askgamblers to review the case, right?

And askgamblers ruled against them.

And then instead of paying  the player they ghosted, right.

The details of the case don't even matter anymore.

In other words all sportsbook who have Curacao license are absolutely joke and the governing body who authorized Curacao license are jokes too? Let's not understand a thing the way it benefits us.

What? I never criticized any site for having a license from Curacao. There are plenty of trustworthy sites that do. But the only benefits of the license are for the casino. The fact that a casino has a license from Curacao should mean nothing from the players perspective as to whether or not they should trust the casino with their money.

[LoyceV]

It strongly looks to me as if they play together with their Licenseholder Antillephone.

I'll type/quote the email here:

"It appears that you have been flagged and that there have been various accounts registered by you or those pertaining to your household. This is against Terms and Conditions, namely, clause 6.1. It is noteworthy that both accounts were accessed using the same IP address AND devices!"

I'm curious how Antillephone got this information: is this what the casino told them, or have they independently verified this? And if so: how?

To be fair, it wasn't BitcoinGirl.Club that mentioned OP being Dutch.

OP's username is literally in Dutch, and it means "CrazyBelgian". So I assumed he was from Belgium, but making fun of them is something we Dutchies do, so being Dutch makes sense too.

[tbct_mt2]

I am not familiar with what happened with 1xbit though, but I'll research it.

Start from this [WARNING] Beware of 1xBit casino, investors from Telegram, and Youtube scams!

I am very unsure what happened with 1xBit casino and their activities, advertisement here. They refused to resolve their scam accusations but are readily to spend budget for advertisements in signature campaigns, review campaigns many times. They do have budget for marketing but just used it not good enough.

With bad reputation and risk of red tagged for participants, they only can hire very low quality posters that is wasting their budget. They can use that budget to resolve their cases and move on with good reputation. Then they will be able to hire better quality posters.

[GekkeBelg]

It strongly looks to me as if they play together with their Licenseholder Antillephone.

I'll type/quote the email here:

"It appears that you have been flagged and that there have been various accounts registered by you or those pertaining to your household. This is against Terms and Conditions, namely, clause 6.1. It is noteworthy that both accounts were accessed using the same IP address AND devices!"

I'm curious how Antillephone got this information: is this what the casino told them, or have they independently verified this? And if so: how?

To be fair, it wasn't BitcoinGirl.Club that mentioned OP being Dutch.

OP's username is literally in Dutch, and it means "CrazyBelgian". So I assumed he was from Belgium, but making fun of them is something we Dutchies do, so being Dutch makes sense too.

Yes, I'm Dutch and living in Germany for 17 years. So let us all stop about that subject, it is totally irrelevant where I was born. I never denied that I have a Dutch nationality so please people don't make it look like I was hiding something. All that counts for terms and conditions is where you live.

About that comment from Antillephone, it really surprised me. I strongly believe they just passed on a lie which Coinplay told them, and didn't check it. I know I have only opened 1 account at Coinplay and I live alone in my household. It is absolutely impossible that a second account exists on my same device (=laptop). I really believe Coinplay just made up something that would warrant a confiscation (if it were true) so that their licensor would not be able to punish them or suspend the license.
If it truly was this way, then why did Coinplay not simply submit this proof to Askgamblers? It would have saved their reputation and shut me up immediately. But instead they vanished from the forum and allowed their signature campaign to stop over this, and they would just let that happen if they have a clear case against me?

And the bad thing also is, that Antillephone came up with this line literally 6 mins after I emailed them, but then in the 10 days after it they ignored all my follow up emails asking for further explanation and proofs.

[John Abraham]

To be fair, it wasn't BitcoinGirl.Club that mentioned OP being Dutch. It was me after seeing the latest screenshot they posted that had both German and Dutch text.

I know it was you. But I asked BitcoinGirl because she withdrew the support. After all, she thinks the whole story was not said. I wanted to hear more from her because I trusted her judgment. In my opinion, whether OP is German or Dutch, or he is Dutch but lives in Germany, is not matter here anymore. Because CoinPlay did not trigger, KYC and OP did not verify or submit KYC. So, this is irrelevant to share where he is from.

I'll type/quote the email here:

"It appears that you have been flagged and that there have been various accounts registered by you or those pertaining to your household. This is against Terms and Conditions, namely, clause 6.1. It is noteworthy that both accounts were accessed using the same IP address AND devices!"

I'm curious how Antillephone got this information: is this what the casino told them, or have they independently verified this? And if so: how?

There is no one from Antillephone. So, I guess the question will remain unanswered. You ask via email if you want to.

So I assumed he was from Belgium, but making fun of them is something we Dutchies do, so being Dutch makes sense too.

Huh? We? Does this Include you? Have you ever disclosed this before in this forum?

[LoyceV]

So I assumed he was from Belgium, but making fun of them is something we Dutchies do, so being Dutch makes sense too.

Huh? We? Does this Include you? Have you ever disclosed this before in this forum?

It's not a secret I'm from the Netherlands, but I think you missed my point: making fun of Belgians is an ancient thing here (we say they're dumb, they say we're cheap).
FWIW: I have no doubt about OP speaking Dutch. Not that it matters. In my opinion, this is enough:

For an independent review, we will proceed with sharing the relevant details of your case with a third party - Askgamblers, as you've suggested.

They didn't:

Kindly note that the AskGamblers Complaint Team requested additional evidence and details from the Coinplay Casino team due to the fact that we considered the information they presented not justified enough to confirm the accusations against the player.

Should the operator fail to provide such an update within the specified timeframes, the case shall be considered unresolved and will be closed accordingly.

The regulator's response also doesn't look like any evidence was provided.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

BitcoinGirl.Club, I am sorry, but I am asking why you think the whole story was not said.

Some of the points I can remember so far [I don't have time to check what I said before and read before then quote them].

OP wanted to ignore when I asked him why he had 50 accounts with different sportsbook? He responded later though once I asked again and other few guys too.
OP had very similar problem with other none branded sportsbooks too but still he continues gambling with none branded sportsbooks with large amount of money. With a highly established sportsbook he would not have to face such issue if he was fair
OP use such a blackmailing words/sentences is like if you don't do this I will do that.
OP gets rude when someone is not speaking in his favour. His words against SirJohnVonSlotty was not nice while SirJohnVonSlotty didn't seems siding for either OP not Coinplay.
When licensor told something that was not in his favour he started to blame the licensor. If he was not going to accept the justification of the licensor then why did he wrote them. Now he makes it sound that licensor did not handle it well and their response is suspicious
If anyone says anything that is semi favouring him he makes it sound like 100% in his favour. The askgambler never said OP was right but the reason was lack of providing information from coinplay. The way he is denying the licensor's response he would do that same if askgambler was saying things against him.
Reason was said arbitrage betting, then multi accounting from the same household which also led very well to arbitrage betting so what licensor said are very well relevant to the case.
There are many other things that feel like the whole story was not told as it happened but whatever presented, presented nicely to make it a strong case.

Most importantly if coinplay was really wanted to scam the OP then why did they returned his deposit?

We all are speculating and supporting flags, leaving red feedback based on what OP wants us to do. Lacking of communication does not mean you are guilty. If coinplay was fucking co-operative and giving us information then it would be helpful but that does not mean I have to flag them, red tag them from only hearing one side of story.

There are few other scam accusations against some other casinos which are still active. If I really need to support this flag anymore then I will have to ask the same for others too. Looking at these people who are creating topics against businesses on the forum, these businesses who are spending tons of money for advertising, does it make sense for them to scam members for $1k, $2k, $5k or even $10k?

 

[John Abraham]

Snip

Thanks for the detailed explanation. However, you had a choice not to respond if you wanted to. All point makes sense to me. I also noticed that OP aggressively shows anger when someone doesn't support him. I also criticized OP for being rude to SirJohnVonSlotty.

@GekkeBelg, Indeed, I am seeing some anger from you towards SirJohnVonSlotty. His post makes sense, and he did not guarantee that 100% of those happened. He clearly said

I'm not defending Coinplay, in my eyes this ended up as a good lesson for both sides.... ....What I'm trying to do though is figure out for my self what actually happened here, and it seems there's more to it....

@GekkeBelg, I don't see any point in talking like this, which makes you look guilty of doing something wrong.

It's not a secret I'm from the Netherlands, but I think you missed my point: making fun of Belgians is an ancient thing here (we say they're dumb, they say we're cheap).

I didn't know you were Dutch. I thought you were from Switzerland, as once you responded to me and said you were allegedly Swiss! About making fun, I am not Dutch, and I am not here for long enough. So, I am unaware of this thing.

[TwitchySeal]

Most importantly if coinplay was really wanted to scam the OP then why did they returned his deposit?

You mean if they really wanted to steal players money why did they only steal some and not all of it?

Because that's what scam casinos do.  It's called a freeroll.  ANd 1xbit is the best example of a site that does this on a regular basis.

They keep all of their losing players deposits + some of their winning players winnings.  

Players are less likely to create a public issue if the deposit is returned, even though they never had a chance to win.  I'm sure if it were more profitable, they wouldn't return player deposits, but it seems to be an effective strategy.

Returning players deposits and confiscating their winnings should always be a red flag - there are very few cases where doing so is the appropriate decision for a casino.  A players balance belongs to the player.  It doesn't matter how much they deposited.

Please do not ever give a casino a pass because they returned a deposit and only kept player winnings.

Just a reminder to everyone that's trying to defend Coinplay for some odd reason:

Coinplay agreed to use askgamblers to arbitrate.  

Askgamblers ruled against Coinplay.

Coinplay did not pay and ghosted.

There is absolutely no reason that Coinplay deserves any benefit of doubt in this situation.

I'm not defending Coinplay, in my eyes this ended up as a good lesson for both sides. Coinplay got slapped by the internet for not dealing with the issue, the player got their deposit back (regardless if they did or did not try to play the system)

By even suggesting that a player having their balance taken minus their deposit is somehow acceptable or meaningful is, in fact, defending Coinplay.  

What I'm trying to do though is figure out for my self what actually happened here, and it seems there's more to it.

#1. We have a Dutch player, who shouldn't be playing outside of his country, actively playing on several brands outside of his country.  
#2. That player won a larger amount through activity on several accounts, and triggered the abuser matrix.
#3. That same player got reported that he was playing with different accounts, arbitrage and so on.
#4. The operator didn't want to argue, refunded his deposit and closed his account.
#5. Even if the player could manage to somehow prove that he wasn't abusing the operator and remove all the smoke surrounding him, if KYC would be asked for, he would fail it and again only get the deposit back.

Your list should read:

#1. Coinplay and player had a dispute of players balance.  
#2. Coinplay and player agree to use third party.
#3. Third party rules against Coinplay.
#4. Coinplay still doesn't pay player and ghosts the forum.

[a581aa]

I support OP. Coinplay is obviously a scam company, they cover up their seemingly fair trading plan by returning the principal and always ensuring profits. They first claimed that there were problems with betting on OP, and then said there were multiple accounts, which are ridiculous excuses. If there are odds in the bet, of course there will be risks relative to winning or losing. If OP loses the bet, nothing happens; if they win, various excuses will be used to refund your principal, which is common in some gambling fraud companies. What's the point of gambling if players can only get back their own capital every time they win? These gambling companies always look for players' problems without solving their own internal problems. Anyway, this platform is more disgusting than some unlicensed platforms. I am not specifically targeting anyone, but I have encountered similar situations before where they still give you trouble even when you place normal winning bets. Bet365, Stake and Pinnacle are where you should go - don't waste your time and money on these boring small platforms because even if you bet with them ,they won't provide live video viewing for you.

[LoyceV]

Please do not ever give a casino a pass because they returned a deposit and only kept player winnings.

I like how Stunna handled a confirmed fraude case:

I'd like to stop this right here and make clear that this is not a matter of money but rather a matter of principle. I'm happy to donate at minimum the funds involved in this claim to a charity of the community's choosing.

That makes it clear they don't profit off it, and stops any accusations that they do it for the money.

[SirJohnVonSlotty]

A players balance belongs to the player.

To a legit player that didn't trigger the abuser matrix, yes.

But, if they triggered the abuser matrix, the balance is dissected, and whatever was the casinos money before, is back to being casinos money.

You have to understand that there are millions of forums, scripts and subs dedicated to scamming operators, who are bombarded with them on a daily basis, and dealing with each and every individual case takes resources, and you're either large enough to have those resources, or you go through the route of ignoring them.

You mean if they really wanted to steal players money why did they only steal some and not all of it?

Because that's what scam casinos do.  It's called a freeroll.

Technically, the casino didn't earn any money on this if it was a full refund (house edge/vig included), the total revenue on that player account are now zero.

Your list should read:

#1. Coinplay and player had a dispute of players balance.  
#2. Coinplay and player agree to use third party.
#3. Third party rules against Coinplay.
#4. Coinplay still doesn't pay player and ghosts the forum.

This is true. However, I think that there's more to this case then we see here, but there's no way in finding out that info without a Coinplay representative that would be more active than the current one, so we're just wasting our time arguing.  

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Returning players deposits and confiscating their winnings should always be a red flag - there are very few cases where doing so is the appropriate decision for a casino.  A players balance belongs to the player.  It doesn't matter how much they deposited.

A players balance does not belongs to the player always. When a player is earning the balance from manipulation, abusing terms, abusing bonus, fixing match, arbitraging that is not appreciated by any sportsbook then the balance is not his, even the deposit they made can be confiscated by the sportsbook according to their terms.

Please do not ever give a casino a pass because they returned a deposit and only kept player winnings.

I will suggest you not give a pass to a player too when you do not know if he was manipulating you, hiding information from you. You have no way to verify anything except trusting him. In fact you and me have no way to verify anything presented by the sportsbook too.

I like how Stunna handled a confirmed fraude case:

I'd like to stop this right here and make clear that this is not a matter of money but rather a matter of principle. I'm happy to donate at minimum the funds involved in this claim to a charity of the community's choosing.

That makes it clear they don't profit off it, and stops any accusations that they do it for the money.

I think we need to consider the level of experience a project representative have in the community. Stunna, Steve from sportsbet.iom Karl and some others know how the community works in terms of their marketing but these new casino / sportsbooks launching everyday all the time, do not have much idea about how to handle their PR on the forum. May be it's our failure but that does not mean they have intention to scam anyone especially when they are spending money on building a good reputation for their project.

[LEVSKI7]

Complete nonsense. This illiterate constantly promotes the fraudulent rules of the sites that have no legal value