Betfury cancelled $300,000 worth of bets

[holydarkness]

[...]
 
Once again, I proposed the bets be settled at the "cashout" value of all bets (~330k) thus making a compromise and leaving 80k on the table. It's simple stuff.

Well noted. They assured me that they can't go above the initial offer, I was intending to push for 50,000 and when I discover that I can probably push for settlement at higher number [the cashout of your winning bets, minus what's already returned, amounted at 72,000] I reached to ask if the number is possible, as a gesture of their good will, to meet you in the middle.

I'll inform them that the settlement point can't be reached and it's off the table. And with that, it'll be the end of my active role here, I'll withdraw myself from the case. Best of luck, OP.

[Rating Place]

There’s no gesture of good will on the part of Betfury. The gesture of good will goes to the OP for agreeing to cash out value rather than true value.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

There’s no gesture of good will on the part of Betfury. The gesture of good will goes to the OP for agreeing to cash out value rather than true value.

True value consists of 4 winning slips and 11 losing slips if all the matches had their outcome which did not happen.

Betfury acted on minimizing their risk [OPs betting pattern was not normal], they voided the bet. When a bet is voided the original stake should be returned. We have a case if that was not returned, but if that was returned and Betfury agrees to add anything additional then of course it's a gesture of good will from BetFury. OP should be happy about it that his original stakes are back to him. Has he got his original stakes back?

[Rating Place]

There’s no gesture of good will on the part of Betfury. The gesture of good will goes to the OP for agreeing to cash out value rather than true value.

True value consists of 4 winning slips and 11 losing slips if all the matches had their outcome which did not happen.

Betfury acted on minimizing their risk [OPs betting pattern was not normal], they voided the bet. When a bet is voided the original stake should be returned. We have a case if that was not returned, but if that was returned and Betfury agrees to add anything additional then of course it's a gesture of good will from BetFury. OP should be happy about it that his original stakes are back to him. Has he got his original stakes back?

You can cancel a leg but not void the whole multi.

Rule 4.4.13

In case a Bet included in the Bet Builder Bet is voided – the remaining (non-voided) Bets included in the Bet Builder stand.

https://docs.betfury.com/betfury/terms-of-services/sports-betting-terms-and-conditions


OP- You have 6 months to file a complaint under the new LOK law in Curacao. You must use an official form.

[Rating Place]

If someone else were to do the case it may look something like this.

⚖️ Arbitrator Ruling: dplay vs. Betfury

Case Summary:  
This dispute concerns a series of 4-leg combo (parlay) bets placed by the player dplay, totaling $100,000 in wagers on the Betfury sportsbook platform. At the time of Betfury’s cancellation, several legs on multiple tickets had already been settled and won. Despite this, Betfury voided all wagers, including those containing finalized, winning legs.

Initially, Betfury returned the $100,000 and offered the player an additional $100,000 bonus with an unspecified rollover requirement. Betfury acknowledged a $330,000 cashout value prior to the cancellations. However, Betfury later reduced its offer to approximately 50% of that value.


Facts:

• dplay placed multiple 4-leg combo bets totaling $100,000.
• Several legs on many tickets had already gone final (i.e., settled and won).
• Open wagers remained on the affected tickets.
• Betfury canceled all combo bets, including those with finalized, winning legs.
• The official cashout value provided by Betfury at the time of cancellation was $330,000.
• The player agreed to the cashout, but Betfury later reduced the payout offer to roughly half.
• No rule-based justification was provided for this reduction.

Relevant Terms & Conditions (Betfury):  
According to Betfury’s official Sportsbook Terms & Conditions:

• A combo bet (also referred to as a parlay) is defined as a wager made on several independent events.
• The definition of "independent" is key—each leg of a combo bet is treated as its own discrete event. Once an outcome is settled and confirmed, it cannot be voided unless there's clear evidence of error or fraud.

Industry Standards:  
Across reputable jurisdictions (e.g., Curaçao, Malta, UKGC):

• Finalized outcomes in combo bets are irreversible once confirmed.
• Cashout agreements are binding once accepted by both parties.
• Sportsbooks may void tickets before an event begins, but not after individual legs have settled, unless there is demonstrable fraud or a system failure.

✅ Ruling:  
After reviewing the facts, Betfury's published terms, and relevant industry standards, the decision is as follows:

Betfury acted improperly in voiding combo wagers after one or more legs had already settled and in reducing a previously agreed cashout amount. These actions violate industry norms.


Outcome:  
Betfury is ordered to pay the full $330,000 cashout value.

[alani123]

There’s no gesture of good will on the part of Betfury. The gesture of good will goes to the OP for agreeing to cash out value rather than true value.

True value consists of 4 winning slips and 11 losing slips if all the matches had their outcome which did not happen.

Betfury acted on minimizing their risk [OPs betting pattern was not normal], they voided the bet. When a bet is voided the original stake should be returned. We have a case if that was not returned, but if that was returned and Betfury agrees to add anything additional then of course it's a gesture of good will from BetFury. OP should be happy about it that his original stakes are back to him. Has he got his original stakes back?

You can cancel a leg but not void the whole multi.

Rule 4.4.13

In case a Bet included in the Bet Builder Bet is voided – the remaining (non-voided) Bets included in the Bet Builder stand.

https://docs.betfury.com/betfury/terms-of-services/sports-betting-terms-and-conditions


OP- You have 6 months to file a complaint under the new LOK law in Curacao. You must use an official form.

Reporting this is worth a shot but history has shown that on occasions where a casino is ordered to pay via Curacao courts, the casino can simply deny renewing their Curacao license and move to a different license. Usually Comoros.

There have been cases where this happened. And casinos have little to lose because the Curacao license doesn't even allow operation in Curacao, they have no customers there.

So if BetFury had it in their own terms that they can't cancel a mutli bet because of one leg then they're in the wrong. But the OP must consider other factors too. If Betfury can substantiate that there's suspicion of matchfixing in these matches other casinos may have even confiscated his balance. So BetFury may be waiting for some feedback by their bookmaking partner. If the transcripts are released it could be more obvious.

[dplay]

[...]
 
Once again, I proposed the bets be settled at the "cashout" value of all bets (~330k) thus making a compromise and leaving 80k on the table. It's simple stuff.

Well noted. They assured me that they can't go above the initial offer, I was intending to push for 50,000 and when I discover that I can probably push for settlement at higher number [the cashout of your winning bets, minus what's already returned, amounted at 72,000] I reached to ask if the number is possible, as a gesture of their good will, to meet you in the middle.

I'll inform them that the settlement point can't be reached and it's off the table. And with that, it'll be the end of my active role here, I'll withdraw myself from the case. Best of luck, OP.

Thanks for your involvement in this matter. You helped a lot to move the case forward, even though we did not reach an agreement.

You can cancel a leg but not void the whole multi.

Rule 4.4.13

In case a Bet included in the Bet Builder Bet is voided – the remaining (non-voided) Bets included in the Bet Builder stand.

https://docs.betfury.com/betfury/terms-of-services/sports-betting-terms-and-conditions

That particular rule seems to pertain to something else (bet builder) other than regular combo bets. The point that their ruling is illegal still stands.

OP- You have 6 months to file a complaint under the new LOK law in Curacao. You must use an official form.

The bet cancelation happened back in November, so I might be late for a Curacao complaint. Either way, looking at the history of effectiveness of such complaints, they were very unlikely to result in a satisfactory outcome for me to begin with. Although I'm not sure if anything changed for the better in the last several years.

If someone else were to do the case it may look something like this.

⚖️ Arbitrator Ruling: dplay vs. Betfury

Case Summary:  
This dispute concerns a series of 4-leg combo (parlay) bets placed by the player dplay, totaling $100,000 in wagers on the Betfury sportsbook platform. At the time of Betfury’s cancellation, several legs on multiple tickets had already been settled and won. Despite this, Betfury voided all wagers, including those containing finalized, winning legs.

Initially, Betfury returned the $100,000 and offered the player an additional $100,000 bonus with an unspecified rollover requirement. Betfury acknowledged a $330,000 cashout value prior to the cancellations. However, Betfury later reduced its offer to approximately 50% of that value.


Facts:

• dplay placed multiple 4-leg combo bets totaling $100,000.
• Several legs on many tickets had already gone final (i.e., settled and won).
• Open wagers remained on the affected tickets.
• Betfury canceled all combo bets, including those with finalized, winning legs.
• The official cashout value provided by Betfury at the time of cancellation was $330,000.
• The player agreed to the cashout, but Betfury later reduced the payout offer to roughly half.
• No rule-based justification was provided for this reduction.

Relevant Terms & Conditions (Betfury):  
According to Betfury’s official Sportsbook Terms & Conditions:

• A combo bet (also referred to as a parlay) is defined as a wager made on several independent events.
• The definition of "independent" is key—each leg of a combo bet is treated as its own discrete event. Once an outcome is settled and confirmed, it cannot be voided unless there's clear evidence of error or fraud.

Industry Standards:  
Across reputable jurisdictions (e.g., Curaçao, Malta, UKGC):

• Finalized outcomes in combo bets are irreversible once confirmed.
• Cashout agreements are binding once accepted by both parties.
• Sportsbooks may void tickets before an event begins, but not after individual legs have settled, unless there is demonstrable fraud or a system failure.

✅ Ruling:  
After reviewing the facts, Betfury's published terms, and relevant industry standards, the decision is as follows:

Betfury acted improperly in voiding combo wagers after one or more legs had already settled and in reducing a previously agreed cashout amount. These actions violate industry norms.


Outcome:  
Betfury is ordered to pay the full $330,000 cashout value.

Great summary, thanks.

And while so far I've used rounded numbers I'll go back to the original post and update them to be more specific (bets won $410k, and the total amount refunded to me was ~$120k).

Reporting this is worth a shot but history has shown that on occasions where a casino is ordered to pay via Curacao courts, the casino can simply deny renewing their Curacao license and move to a different license. Usually Comoros.

There have been cases where this happened. And casinos have little to lose because the Curacao license doesn't even allow operation in Curacao, they have no customers there.

That is absolutely correct, however those actions come with a cost, both reputational and monetary, so it's not a given that a casino would act in such a way if order to pay out the damages by a relevant court.

So if BetFury had it in their own terms that they can't cancel a mutli bet because of one leg then they're in the wrong. But the OP must consider other factors too. If Betfury can substantiate that there's suspicion of matchfixing in these matches other casinos may have even confiscated his balance. So BetFury may be waiting for some feedback by their bookmaking partner. If the transcripts are released it could be more obvious.

They have never verbalized the accusation beyond the "high risk player" designation.

[Rating Place]

Your case is big enough that sbgok.com may take it. They’ve won cases in Curacao in the past. Although in the BC.game case, BC.game just moved from Curacao to Anjouan.

[dplay]

Your case is big enough that sbgok.com may take it. They’ve won cases in Curacao in the past. Although in the BC.game case, BC.game just moved from Curacao to Anjouan.

I'll definitely consider them.

This situation seems different to BC.game tho, they defrauded people en masse due to bankruptcy whereas Betfury seems quite liquid and generally very functional (they are/were actively developing new features, they reply to messages promptly, they process big withdrawals, they don't impose impossible kyc/aml requirements etc.).

[JollyGood]

Have you in any direct communication with them explain you will report them to their licence provider if they did not work with you to find a mutually acceptable solution? Maybe they will engage with you in a swift manner if they believe you are willing to escalate the matter.

I'll definitely consider them.

This situation seems different to BC.game tho, they defrauded people en masse due to bankruptcy whereas Betfury seems quite liquid and generally very functional (they are/were actively developing new features, they reply to messages promptly, they process big withdrawals, they don't impose impossible kyc/aml requirements etc.).

[dplay]

Have you in any direct communication with them explain you will report them to their licence provider if they did not work with you to find a mutually acceptable solution? Maybe they will engage with you in a swift manner if they believe you are willing to escalate the matter.

I'll definitely consider them.

This situation seems different to BC.game tho, they defrauded people en masse due to bankruptcy whereas Betfury seems quite liquid and generally very functional (they are/were actively developing new features, they reply to messages promptly, they process big withdrawals, they don't impose impossible kyc/aml requirements etc.).

Yes, I've made it clear I'm willing to escalate the matter all the way to court.

[philipma1957]

I no longer carry the signature for them.

I think what they did with your case is not the best way to treat a player.

I am hoping the op gets a better resolution then he has at this point in

time.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It's sad to see that this case, while being published almost 2.5 months ago, still have 0 development and basically only silence from the site. Just shows how series they are taking this thing. While they still advertise here, though recently downsized and also pay less, they still see this forum as a valuable place to advertise. For that reason I can't understand why they would not be willing ton address this matter and even better solve it. 

It's a clear cut case. Even when of course they are protected by their TOS, it is unfair and unethical to just cancel wrong bet. What example does this case make? Players must hope for their bets to win and then again hope that they get paid out in a fair manner? That's crazy. At some point I honestly believe it is fair to consider a flag.

[AB de Royse777]

It's sad to see that this case, while being published almost 2.5 months ago, still have 0 development and basically only silence from the site. Just shows how series they are taking this thing. While they still advertise here, though recently downsized and also pay less, they still see this forum as a valuable place to advertise. For that reason I can't understand why they would not be willing ton address this matter and even better solve it.  

While their official bitcointalk account really do not do much to interact in public but behind the scene a lot goes on. I and holydarkness (I helped him to connect with the security team) are a part of their security department Telegram group  that handles the open cases of bitcointalk. I must say there are tons of discussions goes on every time when there are any accusations opened by random users in this community.

- For this accusation after many hours of discussions from last a few weeks holydarkness brought up a fair deal for the OP but unfortunately it was not enough.
- BETFURY reopened self excluded account - it's obvious this user wanted to create some negative drama. A user made his 4th posts where he speaks about caring for forum members.

Will close this thread for now to avoid further fights between members.

So when someone is assuming nothing is happening when there is an accusation open, they are wrong. Just because an official account is not posting on the forum does not mean they are not addressing a matter or not solving it.

[Rating Place]

It's sad to see that this case, while being published almost 2.5 months ago, still have 0 development and basically only silence from the site. Just shows how series they are taking this thing. While they still advertise here, though recently downsized and also pay less, they still see this forum as a valuable place to advertise. For that reason I can't understand why they would not be willing ton address this matter and even better solve it.  

While their official bitcointalk account really do not do much to interact in public but behind the scene a lot goes on. I and holydarkness (I helped him to connect with the security team) are a part of their security department Telegram group  that handles the open cases of bitcointalk. I must say there are tons of discussions goes on every time when there are any accusations opened by random users in this community.

- For this accusation after many hours of discussions from last a few weeks holydarkness brought up a fair deal for the OP but unfortunately it was not enough.
- BETFURY reopened self excluded account - it's obvious this user wanted to create some negative drama. A user made his 4th posts where he speaks about caring for forum members.

Will close this thread for now to avoid further fights between members.

So when someone is assuming nothing is happening when there is an accusation open, they are wrong. Just because an official account is not posting on the forum does not mean they are not addressing a matter or not solving it.

I don’t doubt that you and holy spend a great amount of time. That said, there are no excuses to cancel a bet for sharp action after one leg has won. Bet Fury must pay the winning legs. Had the first leg lost, the OP would have lost the money. He got free rolled. Legs in parlays are independent events according to the Bet Fury TOS.

Edit- show one example of how a leg can be cancelled that already won. You don’t have to use the Bet Fury case. Use any case to cancel a bet. Then I’ll show it can’t be used in this case.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It's sad to see that this case, while being published almost 2.5 months ago, still have 0 development and basically only silence from the site. Just shows how series they are taking this thing. While they still advertise here, though recently downsized and also pay less, they still see this forum as a valuable place to advertise. For that reason I can't understand why they would not be willing ton address this matter and even better solve it.  

While their official bitcointalk account really do not do much to interact in public but behind the scene a lot goes on. I and holydarkness (I helped him to connect with the security team) are a part of their security department Telegram group  that handles the open cases of bitcointalk. I must say there are tons of discussions goes on every time when there are any accusations opened by random users in this community.

- For this accusation after many hours of discussions from last a few weeks holydarkness brought up a fair deal for the OP but unfortunately it was not enough.
- BETFURY reopened self excluded account - it's obvious this user wanted to create some negative drama. A user made his 4th posts where he speaks about caring for forum members.

Will close this thread for now to avoid further fights between members.

So when someone is assuming nothing is happening when there is an accusation open, they are wrong. Just because an official account is not posting on the forum does not mean they are not addressing a matter or not solving it.

Please, just stop it. If OP did not accept the "offer" there will be a reason for that, most likely because it was ridiculous and cents on the dollar.
Why does OP need to settle for anything else than what he os owed? Also, nobody here is assuming nothing is happening, just straight up NOTHING is happening, that's a fact. For soon to be 3 months there is no result whatsoever.

Trustpilot alone is a testament of what's wrong with the site. Most "5 star reviews" are from people with 1 review posting nonsense like "Great project" or "Best casino", totally not "bot" accounts.  And still 26% of over 1700 reviews are 1 star.

[Rating Place]

It's sad to see that this case, while being published almost 2.5 months ago, still have 0 development and basically only silence from the site. Just shows how series they are taking this thing. While they still advertise here, though recently downsized and also pay less, they still see this forum as a valuable place to advertise. For that reason I can't understand why they would not be willing ton address this matter and even better solve it.  

While their official bitcointalk account really do not do much to interact in public but behind the scene a lot goes on. I and holydarkness (I helped him to connect with the security team) are a part of their security department Telegram group  that handles the open cases of bitcointalk. I must say there are tons of discussions goes on every time when there are any accusations opened by random users in this community.

- For this accusation after many hours of discussions from last a few weeks holydarkness brought up a fair deal for the OP but unfortunately it was not enough.
- BETFURY reopened self excluded account - it's obvious this user wanted to create some negative drama. A user made his 4th posts where he speaks about caring for forum members.

Will close this thread for now to avoid further fights between members.

So when someone is assuming nothing is happening when there is an accusation open, they are wrong. Just because an official account is not posting on the forum does not mean they are not addressing a matter or not solving it.

Please, just stop it. If OP did not accept the "offer" there will be a reason for that, most likely because it was ridiculous and cents on the dollar.
Why does OP need to settle for anything else than what he os owed? Also, nobody here is assuming nothing is happening, just straight up NOTHING is happening, that's a fact. For soon to be 3 months there is no result whatsoever.

Trustpilot alone is a testament of what's wrong with the site. Most "5 star reviews" are from people with 1 review posting nonsense like "Great project" or "Best casino", totally not "bot" accounts.   And still 26% of over 1700 reviews are 1 star.

When people get too close to a sportsbook, they will protect the book. There is no reason to discuss this case for over 2 hours. Bet Fury didn’t like sharp play and decided to free roll, that’s it. There’s been 2.5 months of misinformation posted to protect Bet Fury. There is nothing secret or it would have been posted already.

[holydarkness]

When people get too close to a sportsbook, they will protect the book. There is no reason to discuss this case for over 2 hours. Bet Fury didn’t like sharp play and decided to free roll, that’s it. There’s been 2.5 months of misinformation posted to protect Bet Fury. There is nothing secret or it would have been posted already.

Mind to share us here what this [or is it these] misinformations that was/is being posted to protect BetFury? Because I don't think there is any that's posted in the behalf of protecting them, all that's shared here [at least by me] is a fact or things they conveyed. So... mind to point us out where these misinformations are? So it can be straightened up? Or was it you once again misunderstand things? Like you misunderstand [or was it oversimplify things] that this case should not need to be discussed for over two hours.

Well, unless, of course, if we use your method to handle things, namely: pay the players or I'll urge the player to sue you.

[Rating Place]

I was checking his screenshots and found that even if all the bets were settled after finding the official results then the OP would not win 11 bets out of the 15 bets however the way OP designed the thread I thought all his bets were going to win LOL.

[...]

Hmm, this is interesting.

So, I previously said that I have barest idea of what OP tried to convey with his supporting evidence [screenshots] as it's quite distorted from my screen and I don't have enough brainpower and space on my plate at that time to analyze the image. So I take OP's words for granted.

And then we move and move and ended up on an attempt of settlement, and I didn't look twice as I take OP's word at face value, that his bets are winning suppose they are not unilaterally cancelled by BetFury, so I didn't look twice.

Upon above prompt, I spend a long long hour running the whole screenshots one by one, below should be the real result, suppose BetFury didn't cancel the bets and let them go to their end naturally, where two images are like what BGC said above, that none of the bets were winning combo-bets. And the other one, I mark the open bets that's valid for winning [suppose not voided] in green, and the ones that'll be a losing leg and mark the bet as losing combo in red. As well as marking in yellow where the cashout value won't matter much as the bets will be a losing combo-bet anyway:

[supporting images of the result according to quick google search are below the line]
[each image in this post is in full-linked mode, so the bigger resolution for eye-comfort is just one click away]
[sans the two combo-bets at the bottom of image #3 as it didn't show details of the bets.







So, OP, with that new fact unearthed, our opening number, suppose you want to settle with the cashout of eligible bets paid to you, will be far from 330,000, it will be as below, neglecting the two combo-bets that's unclear:



And if we substract the amount with what they already returned to you, we'll be on USD 72,175.92.



I'll ask you once again if you're willing to take that 40,000 USD and be satisfied with it and mark the case as resolved, or pursue that other 32,176 in other way that is out of my business and mind how and where and what.











Edit: tidying post.

Bump for holy. This whole thing is wrong and very misleading. I ‘ll post more if you want.

On another note, there is very little to discuss with this case. Bet Fury didn’t pay the winning tickets because the player was considered high risk. They also think they can cancel bets gone final. Let’s not make this complicated.

Show me one case where it takes more than 10 minutes to determine if a bet should be paid because a player is considered high risk.

[holydarkness]

Bump for holy. This whole thing is wrong and very misleading. I ‘ll post more if you want.

On another note, there is very little to discuss with this case. Bet Fury didn’t pay the winning tickets because the player was considered high risk. They also think they can cancel bets gone final. Let’s not make this complicated.

Show me one case where it takes more than 10 minutes to determine if a bet should be paid because a player is considered high risk.

And which part is the misinformation? To protect BetFury? That data you quoted, of which I spent hours to consolidate and crosscheck, simply shows facts of what game ended up in loses and what game ended in winnings. So which part from the quoted message that is a misinformation?



Or on more posts, as you hinted?