BC.game asking me to lose intentionally, then confiscating funds ---> RESOLVED!

[Poika5]

Didn't you know that placing bets on the same game and in the same market is not allowed?

It is allowed, and I will continue doing it. Betby can link my accounts later and limit me on every site, but voiding bets 5 days later is ridiculous.

Casinos tend to use their providers as scapegoats. Frankly, their explanation makes no sense, and I'm sure OP feels the same way.
Nevertheless, the most important thing is that OP finally got paid.

[holydarkness]

BC Game and 500 Casino both use 'Betby' as our odds supplier. In this instance, a customer placed bets on the same market on both websites simultaneously. The odds provider: 'Betby', monitors betting patterns across the platforms it supports and places restrictions on players to prevent excessive bets on particular markets.

Thanks for the good investigation and solving the issue. But I would like to ask the player some questions regarding the bet he made.

Yes, I can confirm they contacted me on Telegram and after a brief discussion BC.game decided to credit me the missing 88mbtc and paid me in full.
So, for me this case can finally be closed with a very positive outcome.

Mr. GekkeBelg!
Please be honest here. The people were supporting you, and you already got your winnings. Now, please answer my question with honesty. Didn't you know that placing bets on the same game and in the same market is not allowed? I guess you should know it because you are a regular gambler and you have tried 40+ sportsbooks according to you. I have seen some users asking why you chose such platforms when you can place a big bet on a reputed established casino. Your excuse was you wanted better odds, and that's why you looked for a different market. But, as I understand, you cannot place a bet on the same game with the same market provider. Or am I wrong?

We were blaming the BC game for not paying you. But after the explanation they wrote and generously added your winnings because there was a delay from their side, I believe they were too generous. If you raise the same accusation against bigger platforms, I bet you wouldn't get that winning today because of the violation you made.

He's placing a bet across different platforms on the same game for the same result. Far as I know, what's prohibited is arbitrage betting, where the bettor placed bets for multiple outcome. Given OP placed bet for the exact same outcome, I don't think that's prohibited. Unless a clause in BC's ToS specifically prohibit this... can you perhaps point it out to us, please?

[BC.Game Support]

He's placing a bet across different platforms on the same game for the same result. Far as I know, what's prohibited is arbitrage betting, where the bettor placed bets for multiple outcome. Given OP placed bet for the exact same outcome, I don't think that's prohibited. Unless a clause in BC's ToS specifically prohibit this... can you perhaps point it out to us, please?

Odds providers usually limit the maximum bet amount a user can place on a market; this is a common risk management strategy implemented by every odds provider. When a user exceeds the limit placed, they're not allowed to place more on the same market, and since we share the same odds provider, the limit was enforced cross-site. The 5-day delay in voiding the bet makes it awkward, but this is what has transpired.

[Poika5]

He's placing a bet across different platforms on the same game for the same result. Far as I know, what's prohibited is arbitrage betting, where the bettor placed bets for multiple outcome. Given OP placed bet for the exact same outcome, I don't think that's prohibited. Unless a clause in BC's ToS specifically prohibit this... can you perhaps point it out to us, please?

Odds providers usually limit the maximum bet amount a user can place on a market; this is a common risk management strategy implemented by every odds provider. When a user exceeds the limit placed, they're not allowed to place more on the same market, and since we share the same odds provider, the limit was enforced cross-site. The 5-day delay in voiding the bet makes it awkward, but this is what has transpired.

What? So if I'm limited at Roobet(max bet 1$) then Betby will void my 1000$ bet at Bc.Game? I have a different limit on every Betby sportsbook.

the limit was enforced cross-site.

This sounds pretty much impossible.

[Beparanf]

What? So if I'm limited at Roobet(max bet 1$) then Betby will void my 1000$ bet at Bc.Game? I have a different limit on every Betby sportsbook.

Think of it like casino is just being rented by bookmaker to place their sportsbook, Casino itself is just using 3rd party services for their sportsbook category which means you are limited by the bookmaker whatever casino you are using as long as it’s same bookmaker.

If you read the statement of BC carefully, they have no control over bookmaker decision since they are just using their service. Most likely you will always be limited as long as you play on same bookmaker. The case of the OP is just different because they are trying to void the bet that already have a result few days ago.

[BC.Game Support]

What? So if I'm limited at Roobet(max bet 1$) then Betby will void my 1000$ bet at Bc.Game? I have a different limit on every Betby sportsbook.

Yes, if they detect you to be using multiple websites to bypass a maximum bet amount limit set by them they would more than likely limit you across all the websites that they operate. You can confirm this with Betby themselves.

[Poika5]

What? So if I'm limited at Roobet(max bet 1$) then Betby will void my 1000$ bet at Bc.Game? I have a different limit on every Betby sportsbook.

Yes, if they detect you to be using multiple websites to bypass a maximum bet amount limit set by them they would more than likely limit you across all the websites that they operate. You can confirm this with Betby themselves.

My question was about voiding, not limiting. Also, which one is the "real" limit if I have different limits at every site?
My point is as long as each Betby casino has a different limit, they can't enforce the cross-site limit.

Think of it like casino is just being rented by bookmaker to place their sportsbook, Casino itself is just using 3rd party services for their sportsbook category which means you are limited by the bookmaker whatever casino you are using as long as it’s same bookmaker.

If you read the statement of BC carefully, they have no control over bookmaker decision since they are just using their service. Most likely you will always be limited as long as you play on same bookmaker. The case of the OP is just different because they are trying to void the bet that already have a result few days ago.

I'm a pro sports bettor, and I have worked on both sides of the aisle.

Usually the user would get limited before they've placed a bet, but in this case

Betby needs information(bets) to profile the customer correctly.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

He's placing a bet across different platforms on the same game for the same result. Far as I know, what's prohibited is arbitrage betting, where the bettor placed bets for multiple outcome. Given OP placed bet for the exact same outcome, I don't think that's prohibited. Unless a clause in BC's ToS specifically prohibit this... can you perhaps point it out to us, please?

Odds providers usually limit the maximum bet amount a user can place on a market; this is a common risk management strategy implemented by every odds provider. When a user exceeds the limit placed, they're not allowed to place more on the same market, and since we share the same odds provider, the limit was enforced cross-site. The 5-day delay in voiding the bet makes it awkward, but this is what has transpired.

For a user, there are no way to know more than one company is using the same provider. Even if the user knows more than one company is using the same provider still he can pretend that he does not know anything about it. My point is if I have 5 accounts with 5 different gambling sites and if those 5 gambling sites are using the same provider, is there any terms that I can not place bet in the same market and in the same leg? I understand if I place bet in the same market but in different leg then it may mark as arbitrage bet which is a valid accusation to protect their business.

The risk management should be for individual entries [Here BC.Game]

[BC.Game Support]

For a user, there are no way to know more than one company is using the same provider. Even if the user knows more than one company is using the same provider still he can pretend that he does not know anything about it. My point is if I have 5 accounts with 5 different gambling sites and if those 5 gambling sites are using the same provider, is there any terms that I can not place bet in the same market and in the same leg? I understand if I place bet in the same market but in different leg then it may mark as arbitrage bet which is a valid accusation to protect their business.

The risk management should be for individual entries [Here BC.Game]

Usually the user would get limited before they've placed a bet, but in this case, the bet was voided 5 days after the bet was settled. If it were up to us, we would not have done such a thing, and so we've decided to refund the user anyway, as it was a really awkward situation that our provider had put us in. We do have plans to upgrade our odds provider in the distant future to a more robust one.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

They have now had a big red banner and scammer warning above all their threads for days and that still hasn't resulted in the casino representative to come online and say something. It doesn't look good, and they don't seem to care. I can't think of any other reasons unless they are health-related why the forum rep has decided to remain silent. And even that is far-fetched and very unlikely. 

We have seen this on the forum many times before and we know how it ends. The miracle of the rep suddenly coming in, apologising for his absence for health issues and satisfactorily resolving all issues is not going to happen. I think we can clearly speak of scam at this stage.

I'm going to have to eat my own words because they have already resolved three of the four cases they had pending, although in one case the user does not fully agree with the resolution. It remains to be seen if they resolve all of them, but it seems they are on the right track.

[GekkeBelg]

I'm glad your case got resolved. As you've been made whole again and marked this case as solved, thus forgiving them, the clauses in the flag that I supported are no longer true. I am withdrawing my support to the flag and will update the summary with this case marked as solved.

I will normally advise to mark the solved case as "solved" [already done] and lock the thread to prevent further meaningless discussion. But it might be wise to keep this thread open for the next 24 hours to give anyone overseeing this thread a space to speak up their mind. Do you mind to keeep it open for the next 24 hours and then lock them after?

That was exactly my idea, I will close this thread only on Monday evening so that people still have 2 days to share their opinion in here. This is because the people were so heavily invested in this topic so it would be rough to just shut them out.

That's great news that the issue got resolved positively! Did they offer any additional compensation for the delay in settling the matter over the past three months? I had trouble withdrawing money from other casino and I ended up losing the amount I wanted to withdraw. They gave me at least compensation to make up for it.

Yes, I also got 333 USD on top of it extra.

[GekkeBelg]

BC Game and 500 Casino both use 'Betby' as our odds supplier. In this instance, a customer placed bets on the same market on both websites simultaneously. The odds provider: 'Betby', monitors betting patterns across the platforms it supports and places restrictions on players to prevent excessive bets on particular markets.

Thanks for the good investigation and solving the issue. But I would like to ask the player some questions regarding the bet he made.

Yes, I can confirm they contacted me on Telegram and after a brief discussion BC.game decided to credit me the missing 88mbtc and paid me in full.
So, for me this case can finally be closed with a very positive outcome.

Mr. GekkeBelg!
Please be honest here. The people were supporting you, and you already got your winnings. Now, please answer my question with honesty. Didn't you know that placing bets on the same game and in the same market is not allowed? I guess you should know it because you are a regular gambler and you have tried 40+ sportsbooks according to you. I have seen some users asking why you chose such platforms when you can place a big bet on a reputed established casino. Your excuse was you wanted better odds, and that's why you looked for a different market. But, as I understand, you cannot place a bet on the same game with the same market provider. Or am I wrong?

We were blaming the BC game for not paying you. But after the explanation they wrote and generously added your winnings because there was a delay from their side, I believe they were too generous. If you raise the same accusation against bigger platforms, I bet you wouldn't get that winning today because of the violation you made.

It's perfectly allowed to place 2 bets on the same game with 2 sportsbooks who happen to use the same odds provider. I did nothing wrong.
And I have done this multiple times in the years before without problems. It's not even up to the user to know which odds provider a sportsbook has. The fact that I knew was because I am experienced, but most people wouldn't even realize which books use the same odds provider.

[GekkeBelg]

He's placing a bet across different platforms on the same game for the same result. Far as I know, what's prohibited is arbitrage betting, where the bettor placed bets for multiple outcome. Given OP placed bet for the exact same outcome, I don't think that's prohibited. Unless a clause in BC's ToS specifically prohibit this... can you perhaps point it out to us, please?

Odds providers usually limit the maximum bet amount a user can place on a market; this is a common risk management strategy implemented by every odds provider. When a user exceeds the limit placed, they're not allowed to place more on the same market, and since we share the same odds provider, the limit was enforced cross-site. The 5-day delay in voiding the bet makes it awkward, but this is what has transpired.

The odds provider is fully at fault here, not me. Most users wouldn't even know which sportsbook uses which provider. If an odds provider does not want more than a certain amount of stake on a certain game, then they should simply arrange their system in a way where odds drop after a certain total stake, or that bets are not even accepted at all anymore.
Next to that, I don't see what difference it would make if one person (me) places 2 times a stake on a certain game, or if it's 2 different persons. The risk/reward is exactly the same.

[Pmalek]

Since OP is satisfied with the outcome, I can't support the flag anymore and will therefore delete my support for it. The negative feedback for the casino will remain until the backlog of unresolved accusations has been resolved.

I had trouble withdrawing money from other casino and I ended up losing the amount I wanted to withdraw. They gave me at least compensation to make up for it.

It's a matter of their goodwill to do that. They are certainly not required to give back the money you gambled away. I would say you were lucky to get something back that you originally didn't have. No idea what caused the delay with withdrawals in the first place, though.

Didn't you know that placing bets on the same game and in the same market is not allowed?

Placing bets on any market that is open and available is allowed regardless of what the bookies try to tell you. If you don't want bets to be placed on a selection, close the market and don't open it again. If you don't want a player to play on your webste, limit him or ban him after paying out the money they are owed. 

Usually the user would get limited before they've placed a bet, but in this case, the bet was voided 5 days after the bet was settled.

And if that limit happened before, it would be ok. But since both the casino and betting provider accepted the bet, it should be honored. You did the right thing in the end.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

For a user, there are no way to know more than one company is using the same provider. Even if the user knows more than one company is using the same provider still he can pretend that he does not know anything about it. My point is if I have 5 accounts with 5 different gambling sites and if those 5 gambling sites are using the same provider, is there any terms that I can not place bet in the same market and in the same leg? I understand if I place bet in the same market but in different leg then it may mark as arbitrage bet which is a valid accusation to protect their business.

The risk management should be for individual entries [Here BC.Game]

Usually the user would get limited before they've placed a bet, but in this case, the bet was voided 5 days after the bet was settled. If it were up to us, we would not have done such a thing, and so we've decided to refund the user anyway, as it was a really awkward situation that our provider had put us in. We do have plans to upgrade our odds provider in the distant future to a more robust one.

Limiting in every gambling site seems reasonable.
Good to observe you are finally working on making things right. If you continue making things right then all these negative on your feedback page will not stay long. Since the case is resolved and status updated by the OP, I removed my support from the flag. Looking ahead more progress and I will have no problem to remove the negative feedback I left.

[BC.Game Support]

Hey,

We would really appreciate it if the users who have supported the flag for GekkeBelg's case (@yahoo62278 @Slow death @nutildah) kindly updated their position on this matter as it has been resolved to the satisfaction of the OP. We appreciate your pro-activeness in the community, and it helped us find this case and brought it to the limelight.

[Shishir99]

It's perfectly allowed to place 2 bets on the same game with 2 sportsbooks who happen to use the same odds provider. I did nothing wrong.
And I have done this multiple times in the years before without problems. It's not even up to the user to know which odds provider a sportsbook has. The fact that I knew was because I am experienced, but most people wouldn't even realize which books use the same odds provider.

Okay. Your explanation makes sense. I am not experienced in sportsbetting and I don't know much about these rules. I asked you those questions because of the BC game support response. As they said the odds provider voided the bet giving that reason. Why would a provider void a bet after five days if betting on the same side is allowed?

Nice to see the case comes to an end with a positive outcame. They have a couple of more accusations to solve. I hope they will fix them too. 

[LEVSKI7]

For a user, there are no way to know more than one company is using the same provider. Even if the user knows more than one company is using the same provider still he can pretend that he does not know anything about it. My point is if I have 5 accounts with 5 different gambling sites and if those 5 gambling sites are using the same provider, is there any terms that I can not place bet in the same market and in the same leg? I understand if I place bet in the same market but in different leg then it may mark as arbitrage bet which is a valid accusation to protect their business.

The risk management should be for individual entries [Here BC.Game]

Usually the user would get limited before they've placed a bet, but in this case, the bet was voided 5 days after the bet was settled. If it were up to us, we would not have done such a thing, and so we've decided to refund the user anyway, as it was a really awkward situation that our provider had put us in. We do have plans to upgrade our odds provider in the distant future to a more robust one.

Limiting in every gambling site seems reasonable.
Good to observe you are finally working on making things right. If you continue making things right then all these negative on your feedback page will not stay long. Since the case is resolved and status updated by the OP, I removed my support from the flag. Looking ahead more progress and I will have no problem to remove the negative feedback I left.

It may be reasonable for the illiterate, but from a legal point of view it is illegal to set a personal limit

[StudsonBudson]

It may be reasonable for the illiterate, but from a legal point of view it is illegal to set a personal limit

I'm 100% sure you're either trolling or you have never placed a single sportsbet in your life. What are you yapping about, every sportsbook has betting limits in place, you can obviously not bet infinite money.

[LEVSKI7]

ANJ: Operators may not limit stakes without “legitimate reasons”

If article L. 121-11 is violated, operators can be fined up to €1,500, which could be increased to €3,000 if the violations are repeated.In addition, offenders could receive two years in prison and a fine of €300,000.ANJ concluded that operators cannot refuse bets from a player, unless the operator has a legitimate reason as designated under article L. 121-11 of the French Code of Consumption. This means that an operator could argue that it has a legitimate reason not to accept a sports bet from a patron.Legally defined legitimate reasons include refusing to allow a minor, someone who has self-excluded or an excessive bettor to gamble.