Stake suspended my account with 8270 USDT immediately after winning

[Rating Place]

I'm happy that Stake paid but there really wasn't a need for a huge delay on a case this simple. Stake has become the most intrusive casino here.

Basically they unblocked my account just to withdraw, they have limited my ability to bet, I think they only welcome losers, I tried to bet 15 dollars on Spain and France yesterday and I couldn't, I can only bet 10 dollars at a time, so I withdraw . my funds and I will never return to this casino again.

I guess "the violation of your TOS" was you are not allowed to win or recover losses.

If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal. If it looks like you are going to lose long term, KYC will be initial at worst.

[holydarkness]

I'm happy that Stake paid but there really wasn't a need for a huge delay on a case this simple. Stake has become the most intrusive casino here.

Basically they unblocked my account just to withdraw, they have limited my ability to bet, I think they only welcome losers, I tried to bet 15 dollars on Spain and France yesterday and I couldn't, I can only bet 10 dollars at a time, so I withdraw . my funds and I will never return to this casino again.

I guess "the violation of your TOS" was you are not allowed to win or recover losses.

If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal. If it looks like you are going to lose long term, KYC will be initial at worst.

Let's not start slinging muds, shall we?


OP, though you're no longer acceptable to play on Stake, your balance are all withdrawable and successfully landed on your wallet, there is currently no ongoing scam. I'll repeat my previous request to lock this thread and mark the opening title with the word "resolved" to mark it as done.

If you still want to gamble, there are still other sites that accept players.

[Rating Place]

I'm happy that Stake paid but there really wasn't a need for a huge delay on a case this simple. Stake has become the most intrusive casino here.

Basically they unblocked my account just to withdraw, they have limited my ability to bet, I think they only welcome losers, I tried to bet 15 dollars on Spain and France yesterday and I couldn't, I can only bet 10 dollars at a time, so I withdraw . my funds and I will never return to this casino again.

I guess "the violation of your TOS" was you are not allowed to win or recover losses.

If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal. If it looks like you are going to lose long term, KYC will be initial at worst.

Let's not start slinging muds, shall we?


OP, though you're no longer acceptable to play on Stake, your balance are all withdrawable and successfully landed on your wallet, there is currently no ongoing scam. I'll repeat my previous request to lock this thread and mark the opening title with the word "resolved" to mark it as done.

If you still want to gamble, there are still other sites that accept players.

That's not slinging mud, it's happened multiple times with Stake with winning players. The OP should have received his money when he asked. Stake has a license in Curacao. The licensing is much stricter in the UK and US. The books in those two jurisdictions aren't doing what Stake is doing to winning players. In the UK and US, they don't unnecessarily harass players, they limit winning players. There's no reason for us to praise a book because they paid one month after asking. We should take note and try to pressure books so that we aren't unduly harassed.

[holydarkness]

If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal. If it looks like you are going to lose long term, KYC will be initial at worst.

Let's not start slinging muds, shall we?

That's not slinging mud, it's happened multiple times with Stake with winning players. The OP should have received his money when he asked. Stake has a license in Curacao. The licensing is much stricter in the UK and US. The books in those two jurisdictions aren't doing what Stake is doing to winning players. In the UK and US, they don't unnecessarily harass players, they limit winning players. There's no reason for us to praise a book because they paid one month after asking. We should take note and try to pressure books so that we aren't unduly harassed.

"If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal", this is not slinging muds?

I would personally said for this case, it's an unfounded and baseless statement that's borderline slander.

On other cases where they have the KYC process stretched too long that made Lucifer himself perhaps nodded in agreement, it's arguably acceptable to say they make things unnecessary. But for this one, they seems to do things by the book.

OP's case is simple. He was asked for three months of salary receipt, he can only provide two as the first month he was paid in cash, he waited until the next payment, submitted the new three months salary, and they immediately approve the KYC.

Is this looks like an attempt to find a reason to steal from OP? I am not praising a book [stake, in this instance], if anyone look backward through my post, I condemned their impossible KYC on past case, and other things on other case. This one simply isn't.

And I don't think I would want to address your very last sentence as it's a can of worm that once opened, worth questions your neutrality on every case you oversee.

[Rating Place]

If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal. If it looks like you are going to lose long term, KYC will be initial at worst.

Let's not start slinging muds, shall we?

That's not slinging mud, it's happened multiple times with Stake with winning players. The OP should have received his money when he asked. Stake has a license in Curacao. The licensing is much stricter in the UK and US. The books in those two jurisdictions aren't doing what Stake is doing to winning players. In the UK and US, they don't unnecessarily harass players, they limit winning players. There's no reason for us to praise a book because they paid one month after asking. We should take note and try to pressure books so that we aren't unduly harassed.

"If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal", this is not slinging muds?

I would personally said for this case, it's an unfounded and baseless statement that's borderline slander.

On other cases where they have the KYC process stretched too long that made Lucifer himself perhaps nodded in agreement, it's arguably acceptable to say they make things unnecessary. But for this one, they seems to do things by the book.

OP's case is simple. He was asked for three months of salary receipt, he can only provide two as the first month he was paid in cash, he waited until the next payment, submitted the new three months salary, and they immediately approve the KYC.

Is this looks like an attempt to find a reason to steal from OP? I am not praising a book [stake, in this instance], if anyone look backward through my post, I condemned their impossible KYC on past case, and other things on other case. This one simply isn't.

And I don't think I would want to address your very last sentence as it's a can of worm that once opened, worth questions your neutrality on every case you oversee.

I'm not sure if you read all the Stake cases since some don't come down to scam accusations. Most of the time the guys with problems in the Stake sportsbook are winning players. Some get cleared, paid and limited while others aren't paid. Stake is harassing players at a much higher rate than any fiat or crypto book. I don't think it's wrong to point that out.

edit- You always start off taking the book's side, while I always start off taking the player's side. It's probably a good balance and why we disagree on so many cases since it's nothing personal.

[holydarkness]

"If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal", this is not slinging muds?

I would personally said for this case, it's an unfounded and baseless statement that's borderline slander.

On other cases where they have the KYC process stretched too long that made Lucifer himself perhaps nodded in agreement, it's arguably acceptable to say they make things unnecessary. But for this one, they seems to do things by the book.

OP's case is simple. He was asked for three months of salary receipt, he can only provide two as the first month he was paid in cash, he waited until the next payment, submitted the new three months salary, and they immediately approve the KYC.

Is this looks like an attempt to find a reason to steal from OP? I am not praising a book [stake, in this instance], if anyone look backward through my post, I condemned their impossible KYC on past case, and other things on other case. This one simply isn't.

And I don't think I would want to address your very last sentence as it's a can of worm that once opened, worth questions your neutrality on every case you oversee.

I'm not sure if you read all the Stake cases since some don't come down to scam accusations. Most of the time the guys with problems in the Stake sportsbook are winning players. Some get cleared, paid and limited while others aren't paid. Stake is harassing players at a much higher rate than any fiat or crypto book. I don't think it's wrong to point that out.

I'm not sure if you read my post carefully and understand the point I tried to raise, and this has been a long morning for me, so I don't have much energy for pleasantries and politeness I usually have to reserve to address you. So, I'll be blunt.

Read. I bolded the part for you if that's too hard for you.

If it's still too hard to understand, simply answer this: on which part of this case did Stake attempted to steal OP's fund, that worth the statement, "If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal."?

And oh, let's take it a bit further. As I've made myself abundantly and repetitively clear, I can't monitor every cases that's not on Scam Accusations board, the gambling boards and gambling ANN thread are notoriously full of spams that I don't bother spending my time there, so your words quite likely to be right, that I missed some cases. So do us [the forum and the victim of stake] a favor, create a thread, list those cases, I'll review them one by one and we'll see if I stand corrected with Stake and their thieving tendency you proposed.

[Rating Place]

"If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal", this is not slinging muds?

I would personally said for this case, it's an unfounded and baseless statement that's borderline slander.

On other cases where they have the KYC process stretched too long that made Lucifer himself perhaps nodded in agreement, it's arguably acceptable to say they make things unnecessary. But for this one, they seems to do things by the book.

OP's case is simple. He was asked for three months of salary receipt, he can only provide two as the first month he was paid in cash, he waited until the next payment, submitted the new three months salary, and they immediately approve the KYC.

Is this looks like an attempt to find a reason to steal from OP? I am not praising a book [stake, in this instance], if anyone look backward through my post, I condemned their impossible KYC on past case, and other things on other case. This one simply isn't.

And I don't think I would want to address your very last sentence as it's a can of worm that once opened, worth questions your neutrality on every case you oversee.

I'm not sure if you read all the Stake cases since some don't come down to scam accusations. Most of the time the guys with problems in the Stake sportsbook are winning players. Some get cleared, paid and limited while others aren't paid. Stake is harassing players at a much higher rate than any fiat or crypto book. I don't think it's wrong to point that out.

I'm not sure if you read my post carefully and understand the point I tried to raise, and this has a long morning for me, so I don't have much energy for pleasantries and politeness I usually have to reserve to address you. So, I'll be blunt.

Read. I bolded the part for you if that's too hard for you.

If it's still too hard to understand, simply answer this: on which part of this case did Stake attempted to steal OP's fund, that worth the statement, "If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal."?

And oh, let's take it a bit further. As I've made myself abundantly and repetitively clear, I can't monitor every cases that's not on Scam Accusations board, the gambling boards and gambling ANN thread are notoriously full of spams that I don't bother spending my time there, so your words quite likely to be right, that I missed some cases. So do us [the forum and the victim of stake] a favor, create a thread, list those cases, I'll review them one by one and we'll see if I stand corrected with Stake and their thieving tendency you proposed.

My last statement as this is now getting too personal. You accused me of borderline slander (libel) when I just pointed out a truthful pattern by Stake.

[holydarkness]

I'm not sure if you read my post carefully and understand the point I tried to raise, and this has a long morning for me, so I don't have much energy for pleasantries and politeness I usually have to reserve to address you. So, I'll be blunt.

Read. I bolded the part for you if that's too hard for you.

If it's still too hard to understand, simply answer this: on which part of this case did Stake attempted to steal OP's fund, that worth the statement, "If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal."?

And oh, let's take it a bit further. As I've made myself abundantly and repetitively clear, I can't monitor every cases that's not on Scam Accusations board, the gambling boards and gambling ANN thread are notoriously full of spams that I don't bother spending my time there, so your words quite likely to be right, that I missed some cases. So do us [the forum and the victim of stake] a favor, create a thread, list those cases, I'll review them one by one and we'll see if I stand corrected with Stake and their thieving tendency you proposed.

My last statement as this is now getting too personal. You accused me of borderline slander (libel) when I just pointed out a truthful pattern by Stake.

Ahh, I stand corrected. Libel, not slander.

Is it, though? Too personal and I accuses you of something that is not [libel]? Let's break it down, you start by saying that if Stake perceive someone to be a winning gambler, they will look for a reason to steal, of which I politely asked to refrain from giving baseless statement, as, IMO, this case seems to be a situation where Stake do everything by the book. So again, tell me, which part of this case gave you the impression that Stake tries to steal from OP?

[memehunter]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), Stake definitely delayed KYC.  It's not good to simply trust any casino based solely on its past reputation.

Holydarkness seems to be unnecessarily defensive of Stake.  The original poster (OP) received their payout likely because they made a public accusation of a scam. There's no way to know how many others have been caught in this indefinite KYC loop (or trap) without ever making a post. 

[holydarkness]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), Stake definitely delayed KYC.  It's not good to simply trust any casino based solely on its past reputation.

Holydarkness seems to be unnecessarily defensive of Stake.  The original poster (OP) received their payout likely because they made a public accusation of a scam. There's no way to know how many others have been caught in this indefinite KYC loop (or trap) without ever making a post. 

Thank you for your honest opinion, I appreciate it and have put it into my consideration upon the attempt to see the situation from different perspective. I'll say that, seen from different lens, the recent discussion can indeed cast an impression that I try to paint Stake as a good casino while Peeps tries to point out how they cheated their players.

However, if I may offer my perspective and the way I see the development of the case, to clarify, I am not defending Stake in sense of turning my ears deaf and my eyes blind. I don't think I won't do the same for any other random casino if it ever happened to them. I simply don't want someone mudding a situation, especially when addressed to one that tries to go by the book.

Unless I understand things wrongly, OP got his account locked roughly three weeks ago --let's say a month, just to be safe-- he got stuck at level 3 [proof of address] because he can't provide a utility bill under his name, and level 4 [proof of wealth] because they asked him for the latest 3 months of payslip, and OP can only gave the last two.

This situation then remedied as the month changed and OP got his next payslip, enabling him to submit three last payslip, as well as having his credit card statement as proof of address in place of the utility bills.

With these, Stake immediately proceed, investigates his account, and unlocked his withdrawal.

This is not like the neighboring case where they throw impossible reason of rejection, like things being too blurry, all details should be on the same page, etc. This time they play by the book. I don't think it's fair if the casino [any casino, really] rewarded with a statement that they tries to steal.

If Peeps's comment was addressed to other cases, perhaps the one that spanned for about six months, where even I commented once that they crossed a line with their KYC requirement, I wouldn't waste a breath to address statement Peeps gave here.

Stake's KYC cases is something that piqued our curiosity, about how they seemingly tries to weeded out their players by imposing borderline-irritating KYC. I even agreed to an opinion on earlier page on this thread, about how their KYC requirement upon first deposit should be player's decision and not something being enforced to them. But the situation here is different.

[Rating Place]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), Stake definitely delayed KYC.  It's not good to simply trust any casino based solely on its past reputation.

Holydarkness seems to be unnecessarily defensive of Stake.  The original poster (OP) received their payout likely because they made a public accusation of a scam. There's no way to know how many others have been caught in this indefinite KYC loop (or trap) without ever making a post.  

Thank you for your honest opinion, I appreciate it and have put it into my consideration upon the attempt to see the situation from different perspective. I'll say that, seen from different lens, the recent discussion can indeed cast an impression that I try to paint Stake as a good casino while Peeps tries to point out how they cheated their players.

However, if I may offer my perspective and the way I see the development of the case, to clarify, I am not defending Stake in sense of turning my ears deaf and my eyes blind. I don't think I won't do the same for any other random casino if it ever happened to them. I simply don't want someone mudding a situation, especially when addressed to one that tries to go by the book.

Unless I understand things wrongly, OP got his account locked roughly three weeks ago --let's say a month, just to be safe-- he got stuck at level 3 [proof of address] because he can't provide a utility bill under his name, and level 4 [proof of wealth] because they asked him for the latest 3 months of payslip, and OP can only gave the last two.

This situation then remedied as the month changed and OP got his next payslip, enabling him to submit three last payslip, as well as having his credit card statement as proof of address in place of the utility bills.

With these, Stake immediately proceed, investigates his account, and unlocked his withdrawal.

This is not like the neighboring case where they throw impossible reason of rejection, like things being too blurry, all details should be on the same page, etc. This time they play by the book. I don't think it's fair if the casino [any casino, really] rewarded with a statement that they tries to steal.

If Peeps's comment was addressed to other cases, perhaps the one that spanned for about six months, where even I commented once that they crossed a line with their KYC requirement, I wouldn't waste a breath to address statement Peeps gave here.

Stake's KYC cases is something that piqued our curiosity, about how they seemingly tries to weeded out their players by imposing borderline-irritating KYC. I even agreed to an opinion on earlier page on this thread, about how their KYC requirement upon first deposit should be player's decision and not something being enforced to them. But the situation here is different.

Stake uses shady practices with KYC that no other book, fiat or crypto are using to the same extent. As the poster above said, had the OP not come here, he may still be getting the runaround. There’s no reason for you to tell me to stop mudslinging and using borderline slander(libel). Attack the books, not the posters. Attacking books can help stop shady practices.

[holydarkness]

Stake uses shady practices with KYC that no other book, fiat or crypto are using to the same extent. As the poster above said, had the OP not come here, he may still be getting the runaround. There’s no reason for you to tell me to stop mudslinging and using borderline slander(libel). Attack the books, not the posters. Attacking books can help stop shady practices.

I have to agree that their KYC is intrusive, I believe I've made my opinion known on many occasion. As the rest of your post, let's break them down.

Is it? That if OP doesn't come here, he might still have his case going and Stake keep rejecting his documents? Previous case indicates otherwise, that even after a player made his situation public, not much had changed and the process still dragged for months. It would indicate that the speed of cutoguad's case got resolved is independent to the post here, rather, it's more to because he fulfilled what they asked [intrusiveness aside].

If we entertain the other possibility for a while though, that the forum has influence over the speed of resolution players get over Stake [and I would love to hope and believe it's the case here], wouldn't it be unwise to "antagonize" the channel that can help people get their rights faster? If they still expedite cases when it got escalated to the forum, wouldn't it be unwise to talk negatively upon their effort, lest them get tired having their effort unappreciated and choose to leave the forum, which lead to us having no means of communication to help players with their situation?

Attack the books, not the posters? How about attack the scammers? Things are not always black or white, on each and every case, the book is not always the bad actor, nor the posters all the time. How exactly attacking books can stop shady practices when a case is a clear cut of player abuse?

[Rating Place]

Stake uses shady practices with KYC that no other book, fiat or crypto are using to the same extent. As the poster above said, had the OP not come here, he may still be getting the runaround. There’s no reason for you to tell me to stop mudslinging and using borderline slander(libel). Attack the books, not the posters. Attacking books can help stop shady practices.

I have to agree that their KYC is intrusive, I believe I've made my opinion known on many occasion. As the rest of your post, let's break them down.

Is it? That if OP doesn't come here, he might still have his case going and Stake keep rejecting his documents? Previous case indicates otherwise, that even after a player made his situation public, not much had changed and the process still dragged for months. It would indicate that the speed of cutoguad's case got resolved is independent to the post here, rather, it's more to because he fulfilled what they asked [intrusiveness aside].

If we entertain the other possibility for a while though, that the forum has influence over the speed of resolution players get over Stake [and I would love to hope and believe it's the case here], wouldn't it be unwise to "antagonize" the channel that can help people get their rights faster? If they still expedite cases when it got escalated to the forum, wouldn't it be unwise to talk negatively upon their effort, lest them get tired having their effort unappreciated and choose to leave the forum, which lead to us having no means of communication to help players with their situation?

Attack the books, not the posters? How about attack the scammers? Things are not always black or white, on each and every case, the book is not always the bad actor, nor the posters all the time. How exactly attacking books can stop shady practices when a case is a clear cut of player abuse?

Stake doesn’t reply here. They didn’t even tell CG the rule(s) the player broke. They do whatever they want and don’t answer to anyone. We can’t just unnecessarily praise a book and take their side to keep them posting here. It’s a tricky situation. If we befriend the book, we can screw the player. If you rule against a book, the book may just stop replying.

Edit- to address the other question, the player will be in the wrong a huge majority of the time. Ahoy does a nice job calling out the scammers.

[holydarkness]

Stake doesn’t reply here. They didn’t even tell CG the rule(s) the player broke. They do whatever they want and don’t answer to anyone. We can’t just unnecessarily praise a book and take their side to keep them posting here. It’s a tricky situation. If we befriend the book, we can screw the player. If you rule against a book, the book may just stop replying.

Edit- to address the other question, the player will be in the wrong a huge majority of the time. Ahoy does a nice job calling out the scammers.

I believe you're not asked to, nor I am saying something about, unnecessarily praising a book. I simply asked to stop slinging muds, to make a statement which is not true, since this case [as repetitively explained] seems not like the other one with long delay. They do things by the book on this one.

And I don't think it's ever needed, unnecessarily praising a book. Simply acknowledge their gesture when they do things right, and call them out when their action is questionable. Though I believe pouring gasoline over an ember [as the "fire" already put off] doesn't bring much benefit, does it?

Let me make it easier, as always, let me try to understand from your POV, what's the point and/or added benefit of saying that they're going to steal from someone they perceive as a winning gambler, on a resolved case?