Shuffle.com - Withdrawals Blocked and Cancelled After Legitimate Win

[Rating Place]

@holydarkness

I have done some more research using the browser inspect tool based on prompts by ChatGPT. Shuffle was trying to hide the provider name.
I am pretty sure that Shuffle uses Sportradar. There are several hints for this. I will paste some of the responses from ChatGPT after I supplied the bot with the data from Inspect Element and the network tab.

Final technical conclusion
Shuffle sportsbook architecture:
✔ Data provider:

Sportradar (confirmed via sr: IDs)

✔ Odds model:

probability-driven automated pricing engine (Sportradar ORS-style)

✔ Frontend:

Shuffle custom GraphQL middleware

What this means in plain English

Shuffle is NOT:

❌ a fully in-house sportsbook
❌ a Betby / Altenar skin (no evidence of those)
❌ directly exposing a white-label API in browser

Instead it is:

A custom sportsbook interface built on top of a Sportradar-powered data + pricing system.

Confidence breakdown (final)
Component   Confidence
Sportradar data feed   99%
Automated trading/probability pricing system   90%
Betby / Altenar involvement   5% (unlikely now)
Fully in-house sportsbook   1%

Final answer to your original question

Shuffle’s sports provider is Sportradar (Betradar infrastructure), integrated through a custom Shuffle GraphQL layer.

Sportradar is the biggest in fraud detection. They work with the NBA, FIFA, etc. Most of the time sportsbooks don't do anything with these suspicious matches even though they know that something wasn't right.

edit. Just looked this up

Yes — Sportradar works with Brazilian basketball through LNB/NBB, including official data distribution, betting video/data rights, analytics tools, and match-fixing monitoring.

[baba2020]

OP has been waiting for weeks, and not a single piece of evidence has been provided. Even worse, he has had to investigate the matter himself just to challenge Shuffle's allegations of match-fixing and integrity concerns.

He has contacted everyone possible, Tim, Noah(solved all past cases but didn´t even show up this time), Support, and VIP Management, yet has mostly been met with silence. That is not how a serious company should handle a dispute like this.

Meanwhile, other major operators using respected providers have found nothing unusual. Sportradar is also used by Stake, and Stake found no integrity issues. Roobet, using Betby, also confirmed that nothing irregular occurred. Is OP supposed to contact Eddie Craven next just to gather even more proof?

This was an NBB game, a major professional basketball league in Brazil. Match-fixing allegations here make little sense. Are we supposed to believe an entire team, or multiple players, or any player, referee, etc, conspired over a handicap market? That would be something that would be shown even in the news. This isn't some obscure tennis or table tennis match in an unknown league.

A company that wants to become an industry leader should understand that trust is everything. Voiding settled winning bets after weeks of delay and extensive verification seriously damages that trust.

At the end of the day, OP risked his own money, placed legitimate wagers, and won, Shuffle.com voided the bets and withheld his rightful winnings.

[Rating Place]

OP has been waiting for weeks, and not a single piece of evidence has been provided. Even worse, he has had to investigate the matter himself just to challenge Shuffle's allegations of match-fixing and integrity concerns.

He has contacted everyone possible, Tim, Noah, Support, and VIP Management, yet has mostly been met with silence. That is not how a serious company should handle a dispute like this.

Meanwhile, other major operators using respected providers have found nothing unusual. Sportradar is also used by Stake, and Stake found no integrity issues. Roobet, using Betby, also confirmed that nothing irregular occurred. Is OP supposed to contact Eddie Craven next just to gather even more proof?

This was an NBB game, a major professional basketball league in Brazil. Match-fixing allegations here make little sense. Are we supposed to believe an entire team, or multiple players, conspired over a handicap market? This isn't some obscure tennis or table tennis match in an unknown league.

A company that wants to become an industry leader should understand that trust is everything. Voiding settled winning bets after weeks of delay and extensive verification seriously damages that trust.

At the end of the day, OP risked his own money, placed legitimate wagers, and won, Shuffle.com voided the bets and withheld his rightful winnings.

I agree with you 100% that this is a big league and the player should be paid. Even though Stake isn't acknowledging it, what most likely happened is that Sportradar marked it as suspicious. That doesn't mean proof of anything. If it were a low level league with suspicious betting patterns then yes, it's probably fixed.

Edit-OP can you post all your bets. I always take the players side until proven guilty. It looks like the first bet you posted is correlated ML to spread. That’s normally not allowed. Maybe I’m missing something but looking at all the bet slips will show what happened.

Sometimes SGP are grouped but I’ve never seen ML with spread.

[pvzera1]

OP has been waiting for weeks, and not a single piece of evidence has been provided. Even worse, he has had to investigate the matter himself just to challenge Shuffle's allegations of match-fixing and integrity concerns.

He has contacted everyone possible, Tim, Noah, Support, and VIP Management, yet has mostly been met with silence. That is not how a serious company should handle a dispute like this.

Meanwhile, other major operators using respected providers have found nothing unusual. Sportradar is also used by Stake, and Stake found no integrity issues. Roobet, using Betby, also confirmed that nothing irregular occurred. Is OP supposed to contact Eddie Craven next just to gather even more proof?

This was an NBB game, a major professional basketball league in Brazil. Match-fixing allegations here make little sense. Are we supposed to believe an entire team, or multiple players, conspired over a handicap market? This isn't some obscure tennis or table tennis match in an unknown league.

A company that wants to become an industry leader should understand that trust is everything. Voiding settled winning bets after weeks of delay and extensive verification seriously damages that trust.

At the end of the day, OP risked his own money, placed legitimate wagers, and won, Shuffle.com voided the bets and withheld his rightful winnings.

I agree with you 100% that this is a big league and the player should be paid. Even though Stake isn't acknowledging it, what most likely happened is that Sportradar marked it as suspicious. That doesn't mean proof of anything. If it were a low level league with suspicious betting patterns then yes, it's probably fixed.

Edit-OP can you post all your bets. I always take the players side until proven guilty. It looks like the first bet you posted is correlated ML to spread. That’s normally not allowed. Maybe I’m missing something but looking at all the bet slips will show what happened.

Sometimes SGP are grouped but I’ve never seen ML with spread.

Shuffle itself explicitly promotes Same-Game Multi betting:
"Now you can combine multiple bets within the same game into a single, high-powered wager."
https://shuffle.com/sports/promotions/sgm-now-live

Even more telling, one of Shuffle's own promotional examples features combining Handicap + Moneyline in the same game, exactly like my bets.

And Shuffle's own Terms and Rules confirm this: "A Same Game Multi (SGM) is a type of sports bet where you combine multiple selections from the same game into one wager for higher potential returns."

It is an official product offered and actively promoted by Shuffle. SGM has been live for months. These were not exploits or prohibited combinations. They were legitimate wagers placed using markets that Shuffle itself made available, fully in accordance with its own rules and promotions.

I risked my own funds. The bets were accepted. The events concluded. I won. Only afterward my winnings were taken away.

You cannot advertise a product, encourage customers to use it, accept the wagers, and then retroactively void winning bets based on the very functionality you promoted.

I should not be put in a position where I have to repeatedly prove that my bets were legitimate. I have already provided extensive evidence showing that everything was placed correctly and fully within Shuffle's own rules and available betting markets. Meanwhile, Shuffle has provided nothing, no evidence, no explanation. They have not even come forward here to defend their decision.

Yet my winnings were taken, and weeks later I am still the one expected to justify myself, while Shuffle remains completely silent.

Shuffle, pay what you owe me and resolve this.

[holydarkness]

Got an offer from Tim to verify the existence of the flag from their provider, but it has to be for-my-eyes-only.

I haven't give my affirmation as I counter-propose to him that I will not only require the flag, but other things to validate their counter-accusation that they explained to me in earlier phase of your case. Namely, if I agree to bridge, I will ask several other evidences where they'll be transparrent with me [that's their side of approval], that will never come out of the room where I sit with Tim [this is the binding point from my side].

As well as asking you to be the eye, and to be the one verify things, and that no-one may protest of whatever come after, and seek "other way of mediation" until one's wish is fulfilled [this is your binding agreement]. I can do mine just fine, I've seen way too many evidence set for my eyes only, and take hits and jabs and blows when community demand things and accuse me of siding with casino or sportsbook side, BUT I won't bother to mediate if none of the two other side doesn't have full intention to fulfill their side.

I am staking my repu and exhausting my contact here. It will be for naught and my contacts will slowly lost their trust in me and walled themselves if my attempt to the binding mediator just means we're another platform where a complainant complained, and when the outcome doesn't work in their favor, they seek other.

I will ask your agreement and permission, as the first side to enter this three-party-binding agreement.

[Mahdirakib]

I should not be put in a position where I have to repeatedly prove that my bets were legitimate. I have already provided extensive evidence showing that everything was placed correctly and fully within Shuffle's own rules and available betting markets. ~

None of is asking you to prove the transparency of your bets. There shouldn't be any problem posting all the bets here which you had placed. You have provided the screenshot of only one bet. We can have some idea about your bets and do a little investigation if you post them here.

'holydarkness' has come with a good proposal here. You will learn what's wrong with your bets. But I can see that you are desperate to get the winning amounts. So, I'm wondering whether you will accept their findings or not.

[Rating Place]

I should not be put in a position where I have to repeatedly prove that my bets were legitimate. I have already provided extensive evidence showing that everything was placed correctly and fully within Shuffle's own rules and available betting markets. ~

None of is asking you to prove the transparency of your bets. There shouldn't be any problem posting all the bets here which you had placed. You have provided the screenshot of only one bet. We can have some idea about your bets and do a little investigation if you post them here.

…….

I agree with this. Posting bets just makes easy. I just looked, they don’t have any rules against correlated parlays (multis) . Kind of strange.

Posting bets may also throw out the fixed bet theory. Without the bets being posted, we are all just guessing. Flags don’t mean guilt. They should be ignored. You need people to read the bets.

Edit- I forgot to add that there are times that correlated multis are good everywhere. What they do is adjust the payout. Instead of getting full value it will be reduced. I assume that’s what happened in the grouped multis.

If the bets are posted publicly the community can decide if it’s appropriate to support a flag if you were wronged.There isn’t anything that needs to be hidden.

[pvzera1]

Got an offer from Tim to verify the existence of the flag from their provider, but it has to be for-my-eyes-only.

I haven't give my affirmation as I counter-propose to him that I will not only require the flag, but other things to validate their counter-accusation that they explained to me in earlier phase of your case. Namely, if I agree to bridge, I will ask several other evidences where they'll be transparrent with me [that's their side of approval], that will never come out of the room where I sit with Tim [this is the binding point from my side].

As well as asking you to be the eye, and to be the one verify things, and that no-one may protest of whatever come after, and seek "other way of mediation" until one's wish is fulfilled [this is your binding agreement]. I can do mine just fine, I've seen way too many evidence set for my eyes only, and take hits and jabs and blows when community demand things and accuse me of siding with casino or sportsbook side, BUT I won't bother to mediate if none of the two other side doesn't have full intention to fulfill their side.

I am staking my repu and exhausting my contact here. It will be for naught and my contacts will slowly lost their trust in me and walled themselves if my attempt to the binding mediator just means we're another platform where a complainant complained, and when the outcome doesn't work in their favor, they seek other.

I will ask your agreement and permission, as the first side to enter this three-party-binding agreement.

I agree to your mediation, and I appreciate you being willing to put your reputation and contacts on the line for this.

That said, I do have an important concern: if there truly is a provider flag or any legitimate evidence, why has it not been presented directly to me from the beginning? I am the affected party, after all. From my perspective, this prolonged process increasingly feels like an attempt to avoid payment rather than a genuine investigation.

I do not believe such a flag exists. If there were a genuine integrity flag from the sportsbook provider, major operators like Stake, Roobet, and others using the same feeds would almost certainly have acted similarly. The idea that such a flag exists exclusively at Shuffle, and nowhere else, seems highly unusual, unilateral, and frankly quite concerning.

Moreover, no public reports, integrity notices, or any indication of suspicious activity have surfaced regarding this event. As far as anyone can tell, nothing irregular was ever identified.

All of my wagers were simple handicap bets placed late in the match. I took the risk with my own money. The team happened to increase advantage late, and the bets won. Had they failed to do so, I would have lost every single wager, and there would have been absolutely no refund, because nothing improper occurred in the event.

I have trusted and welcomed your involvement from the very beginning. However, setting a precedent where Shuffle can produce confidential, unverifiable "evidence" solely for their own benefit, evidence that only supports voiding winning bets, does not seem reasonable or fair.

What I am looking for is independent verification: evidence originating from the sportsbook provider itself, such as Sportradar, or from another neutral third party, not merely from the same part currently refusing to honor the wagers.

If no provider identified any issue, are they now going to invent alternative justifications simply to avoid paying legitimate winnings?

I should not be put in a position where I have to repeatedly prove that my bets were legitimate. I have already provided extensive evidence showing that everything was placed correctly and fully within Shuffle's own rules and available betting markets. ~

None of is asking you to prove the transparency of your bets. There shouldn't be any problem posting all the bets here which you had placed. You have provided the screenshot of only one bet. We can have some idea about your bets and do a little investigation if you post them here.

'holydarkness' has come with a good proposal here. You will learn what's wrong with your bets. But I can see that you are desperate to get the winning amounts. So, I'm wondering whether you will accept their findings or not.

I should not be put in a position where I have to repeatedly prove that my bets were legitimate. I have already provided extensive evidence showing that everything was placed correctly and fully within Shuffle's own rules and available betting markets. ~

None of is asking you to prove the transparency of your bets. There shouldn't be any problem posting all the bets here which you had placed. You have provided the screenshot of only one bet. We can have some idea about your bets and do a little investigation if you post them here.

…….

I agree with this. Posting bets just makes easy. I just looked, they don’t have any rules against correlated parlays (multis) . Kind of strange.

Posting bets may also throw out the fixed bet theory. Without the bets being posted, we are all just guessing. Flags don’t mean guilt. They should be ignored. You need people to read the bets.

Bet list: https://prnt.sc/GkEtr2H4lGYB

Bet 1: https://prnt.sc/r75hhSOhoJMb
Bet 2: https://prnt.sc/VK4Ld4--NJ-p
Bet 3: https://prnt.sc/3e8Y1gCo_Ht9
Bet 4: https://prnt.sc/2nJQ6WtAmJky
Bet 5: https://prnt.sc/YJRL1T9GxMuw
Bet 6: https://prnt.sc/wNOZY5LuCvGc
Bet 7: https://prnt.sc/5uWbaycRaGyR

All bets placed while watching the match live

[Rating Place]

Can you toggle so that all legs can be seen. The only correlated they ban are in esports. I still bet correlated at shops that allow a version.

[pvzera1]

Can you toggle so that all legs can be seen.

Sorry, I forgot to show everything.

Bet 1: https://prnt.sc/nJj0ztjvTbcF
Bet 2: https://prnt.sc/SJV97KH4Q_jm
Bet 3: https://prnt.sc/8bc-oP86t9JK
Bet 4: https://prnt.sc/RiFvPQvIkPEY
Bet 5: https://prnt.sc/bxTM8Yzw1Taf
Bet 6: https://prnt.sc/LoLXkR6zVKzt
Bet 7: https://prnt.sc/-vQpEimGf_va

[Rating Place]

Can you toggle so that all legs can be seen.

Sorry, I forgot to show everything.

Bet 1: https://prnt.sc/nJj0ztjvTbcF
Bet 2: https://prnt.sc/SJV97KH4Q_jm
Bet 3: https://prnt.sc/8bc-oP86t9JK
Bet 4: https://prnt.sc/RiFvPQvIkPEY
Bet 5: https://prnt.sc/bxTM8Yzw1Taf
Bet 6: https://prnt.sc/LoLXkR6zVKzt
Bet 7: https://prnt.sc/-vQpEimGf_va

thanks. They don’t have any rules against correlated. In theory you should be paid in full. I think the fair method would be to throw out the ML and pay you the wins for single spreads.

They would have accepted it as a loss so you should win something if not all. I don’t like free rolls.

[holydarkness]

Got an offer from Tim to verify the existence of the flag from their provider, but it has to be for-my-eyes-only.

I haven't give my affirmation as I counter-propose to him that I will not only require the flag, but other things to validate their counter-accusation that they explained to me in earlier phase of your case. Namely, if I agree to bridge, I will ask several other evidences where they'll be transparrent with me [that's their side of approval], that will never come out of the room where I sit with Tim [this is the binding point from my side].

As well as asking you to be the eye, and to be the one verify things, and that no-one may protest of whatever come after, and seek "other way of mediation" until one's wish is fulfilled [this is your binding agreement]. I can do mine just fine, I've seen way too many evidence set for my eyes only, and take hits and jabs and blows when community demand things and accuse me of siding with casino or sportsbook side, BUT I won't bother to mediate if none of the two other side doesn't have full intention to fulfill their side.

I am staking my repu and exhausting my contact here. It will be for naught and my contacts will slowly lost their trust in me and walled themselves if my attempt to the binding mediator just means we're another platform where a complainant complained, and when the outcome doesn't work in their favor, they seek other.

I will ask your agreement and permission, as the first side to enter this three-party-binding agreement.

I agree to your mediation, and I appreciate you being willing to put your reputation and contacts on the line for this.

That said, I do have an important concern: if there truly is a provider flag or any legitimate evidence, why has it not been presented directly to me from the beginning? I am the affected party, after all. From my perspective, this prolonged process increasingly feels like an attempt to avoid payment rather than a genuine investigation.

I do not believe such a flag exists. If there were a genuine integrity flag from the sportsbook provider, major operators like Stake, Roobet, and others using the same feeds would almost certainly have acted similarly. The idea that such a flag exists exclusively at Shuffle, and nowhere else, seems highly unusual, unilateral, and frankly quite concerning.

Moreover, no public reports, integrity notices, or any indication of suspicious activity have surfaced regarding this event. As far as anyone can tell, nothing irregular was ever identified.

All of my wagers were simple handicap bets placed late in the match. I took the risk with my own money. The team happened to increase advantage late, and the bets won. Had they failed to do so, I would have lost every single wager, and there would have been absolutely no refund, because nothing improper occurred in the event.

I have trusted and welcomed your involvement from the very beginning. However, setting a precedent where Shuffle can produce confidential, unverifiable "evidence" solely for their own benefit, evidence that only supports voiding winning bets, does not seem reasonable or fair.

What I am looking for is independent verification: evidence originating from the sportsbook provider itself, such as Sportradar, or from another neutral third party, not merely from the same part currently refusing to honor the wagers.

If no provider identified any issue, are they now going to invent alternative justifications simply to avoid paying legitimate winnings?
[...]

I initially wanted to say "noted, will proceed as I got your part of the binding agreement" from your first sentence. But the next long paragrahs seemed to contradict the initial sentence. So, instead, I'll say... "noted, I'll tell Tim that you refuse my binding mediation where Shuffle demand evidences to be kept private. I fare you well and wished you find a better mediator."

[pvzera1]

I initially wanted to say "noted, will proceed as I got your part of the binding agreement" from your first sentence. But the next long paragrahs seemed to contradict the initial sentence. So, instead, I'll say... "noted, I'll tell Tim that you refuse my binding mediation where Shuffle demand evidences to be kept private. I fare you well and wished you find a better mediator."

I think there was a misunderstanding, so let me clarify.

I accept your binding mediation and I am willing to proceed under the condition that the evidence remains confidential between you, me, and Shuffle, as you described.

My intention was not to refuse the process, but to emphasize that I am looking for a fair and transparent outcome based on real evidence.

I trust your role as mediator and your judgment in reviewing everything properly. As long as the process is conducted seriously and all relevant evidence is considered, you have my full agreement to move forward.

[Rating Place]

Holy quote

  Got an offer from Tim to verify the existence of the flag from their provider, but it has to be for-my-eyes-only.  

It’s unfair that you don’t want OP to see the evidence. Then you want it binding. Those are strange terms.

[rohang]

Holy quote

  Got an offer from Tim to verify the existence of the flag from their provider, but it has to be for-my-eyes-only.  

It’s unfair that you don’t want OP to see the evidence. Then you want it binding. Those are strange terms.

Well if shuffle is suspecting OP of being involved in match fixing it would make sense they dont want him to see it

Feels very weird though with them still offering markets on that league lol

[Rating Place]

If someone is involved in match fixing, they aren’t making correlated live bets on full game.

[holydarkness]

I initially wanted to say "noted, will proceed as I got your part of the binding agreement" from your first sentence. But the next long paragrahs seemed to contradict the initial sentence. So, instead, I'll say... "noted, I'll tell Tim that you refuse my binding mediation where Shuffle demand evidences to be kept private. I fare you well and wished you find a better mediator."

I think there was a misunderstanding, so let me clarify.

I accept your binding mediation and I am willing to proceed under the condition that the evidence remains confidential between you, me, and Shuffle, as you described.

My intention was not to refuse the process, but to emphasize that I am looking for a fair and transparent outcome based on real evidence.

I trust your role as mediator and your judgment in reviewing everything properly. As long as the process is conducted seriously and all relevant evidence is considered, you have my full agreement to move forward.

I am not the one who set the standard. The casinos and the players are. As always, I'm simply a bridge here, though on this case, I took a step further by being an "active bridge" [travelator?] and mediate things. Still, the terms are set by each parties, whereas my own term is simple: my words bind each parties and no other escalation to other ADR allowed.

Thus, even with your words above, I still have to write to Tim that you refuse my binding mediation, as Shuffle's part of the agreement is that everything is strictly confidential and only shared to me. Again, that's what they want, not me. That's their terms if we're going to go this way.

[pvzera1]

I initially wanted to say "noted, will proceed as I got your part of the binding agreement" from your first sentence. But the next long paragrahs seemed to contradict the initial sentence. So, instead, I'll say... "noted, I'll tell Tim that you refuse my binding mediation where Shuffle demand evidences to be kept private. I fare you well and wished you find a better mediator."

I think there was a misunderstanding, so let me clarify.

I accept your binding mediation and I am willing to proceed under the condition that the evidence remains confidential between you, me, and Shuffle, as you described.

My intention was not to refuse the process, but to emphasize that I am looking for a fair and transparent outcome based on real evidence.

I trust your role as mediator and your judgment in reviewing everything properly. As long as the process is conducted seriously and all relevant evidence is considered, you have my full agreement to move forward.

I am not the one who set the standard. The casinos and the players are. As always, I'm simply a bridge here, though on this case, I took a step further by being an "active bridge" [travelator?] and mediate things. Still, the terms are set by each parties, whereas my own term is simple: my words bind each parties and no other escalation to other ADR allowed.

Thus, even with your words above, I still have to write to Tim that you refuse my binding mediation, as Shuffle's part of the agreement is that everything is strictly confidential and only shared to me. Again, that's what they want, not me. That's their terms if we're going to go this way.

I fully confirm that I accept the terms of your binding mediation.

I understand and agree to the conditions proposed:
- Any evidence presented by Shuffle regarding match-fixing or integrity concerns related to this event will be shared exclusively with you, in strict confidence
- Your verdict will be binding on both parties
- I will not seek any other form of ADR after this process concludes

I trust your role as mediator and the reputation you have built over time in this community. I know you have no interest in favoring either side, and that is precisely why I accept your mediation.

I await confirmation that Shuffle has also accepted the terms so that the mediation can begin

[Rating Place]

A couple of notes:

1. There is a report of match fixing on this game.
2. Nothing has been proven.
3. Your bets show you weren't involved.
4. Two years ago there was a $70,000 fixed case with Fairlay. That one was easy to see since the player’s bets showed he was aware of the fix. Authorities even got involved.
5. This case is different since the OP’s bets don’t show being involved in a fix.

[holydarkness]

I fully confirm that I accept the terms of your binding mediation.

I understand and agree to the conditions proposed:
- Any evidence presented by Shuffle regarding match-fixing or integrity concerns related to this event will be shared exclusively with you, in strict confidence
- Your verdict will be binding on both parties
- I will not seek any other form of ADR after this process concludes

I trust your role as mediator and the reputation you have built over time in this community. I know you have no interest in favoring either side, and that is precisely why I accept your mediation.

I await confirmation that Shuffle has also accepted the terms so that the mediation can begin

By knot of one, the spell's begun.

I've got the evidence given by Shuffle, the flag in question. I am currently asking them for evidence of other things that support the narrative of their counter-acusation.
By knot of two, it cometh true.

"I, holydarkness, hereby bind myself to the mediation agreement set by Shuffle, pvzera1, and myself, that the evidences given by Tim or other staff of Shuffle may never leave my device, shared, discussed with other entities, or any other form of revelation or use, other than to pull the verdict. And that will pursue the evidences from each sides to support each of their narratives."
By knot of three, thus shall it be.

Now OP, apparently, I do need some of your betting history, remind me again if you can procure that, if some samples of your older or newer bets are available from your side or were you locked out from your account?