Shuffle.com - Withdrawals Blocked and Cancelled After Legitimate Win

[baba2020]

Let´s remember what OP agreed before the mediation:

"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
"

That was not respected, bet history does not have anything related to this event, match fix or integrity so, in my opinion, any decision should be considered invalid


Is fluctuation alone a valid reason in the standard industry to void bets? I really want to know because I have a lot of it in my account and big losses and I need that bets to be voided urgently. Shuffle, will you void my bets because of fluctuation?? Sure not, as expected...win bets reason: fluctuation, or whatever they invent, lose bets: going directly to Noah´s travel expenses and gl buddy

I think OP should contact the NBB (the event organizer), since they have their own integrity department and confirm whether there was any official match fixing investigation on that specific game and provide a formal statement that no integrity issues were reported. Will Shuffle ignore one more real evidence provided by the event organizer itself?

I really thought Shuffle was a giant of casino/sportsbook now I see it´s probably just a casino little better than BC.game scam group, very very far from Stake, Roobet. Shuffle is clear: if you don't have a bet history with a consistent pattern, they will void your winnings , and only your winnings. Be aware of that. If you just opened your account and deposited 5k 10k to bet for the first time is definitely not a good idea.

[Rating Place]

Let´s remember what OP agreed before the mediation:

"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
"

That was not respected, bet history does not have anything related to this event, match fix or integrity so, in my opinion, any decision should be considered invalid


Is fluctuation alone a valid reason in the standard industry to void bets? I really want to know because I have a lot of it in my account and I need that bets to be voided urgently. Shuffle, will you void my bets because of fluctuation?? Sure not, as expected...win bets reason: flucutation, or whatever they invent, lose bets: going directly to Noah´s travel expenses and gl buddy.

I really thought Shuffle was a giant of casino/sportsbook now I see it´s probably just a casino little better than BC.game scam group, very very far from Stake, Roobet.

I'm not sure if you're talking about OP or overall. Fluctuation in wagers overall has nothing to do with match fixing. That has to do with public sentiment. I've seen 90% of the wagers or more come in on one side live and pregame. Personal wagers by the OP are irrelevant 99% of the time. That has more to do with props than live bets for full game.

[rohang]

Unfortunatelly... shuffle showed me bunch of evidence, not just one or two, and the evidence [alongside OP's own] built a complete picture of the puzzle. The beauty of double-blind test I always do to casino and players are: they don't know what I aimed for, what pieces of the puzzle I'm seeking. Thus, they can't manipulate it [both the casino and the player] and suddenly, the pieces snap together into a bigger, more whole, image. The last missing piece is now OP's explanation and/or his permission for me to publish his piece of evidence [the betting history] so every overseers can give their opinion whether or nor they're on the same page as me.

Otherwise, I have my verdict ready.

I'm still not fully comfortable with my betting history being posted publicly. However, if you believe that sharing it is necessary and will genuinely influence the decision or help validate the process, then I'm willing to agree, but in that case, it would also be fair for the relevant evidence from Shuffle to be presented alongside it, since the discussion would depend on that context.

That said, I'm still trying to understand the connection here. If the issue is with the event itself, I don't fully see how my betting pattern becomes the central factor.

From my side, I've cooperated fully and provided everything requested. My main concern remains the same, whether there is actual, verifiable evidence of an integrity issue with the event itself.

If you already have your verdict based on everything reviewed, I'm ready to hear it.

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that 

[Rating Place]

They needed late scoring to cover. A big 3 pointer was hit with 28 seconds to go in the game. This game wasn't fixed. That's not the pattern.

 

[pvzera1]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that 

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

[Rating Place]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that  

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

edit. There wasn't a different game. That was a different day.

[rohang]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that 

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

Yea i understand what you are saying, but i think this is their 'proof' or atleast a supporting 'proof' that something was off with this game, since you bet much more(probably) then your usual betting amounts

Which is totally fucked, i am all against the books in most situations, if you lost they wouldnt think twice about marking it as L.

But from here i think your only option is legal or other means, as the forum's mediator (holy) has spoken with them and presumeably convinced about their submitted 'evidence' to him

[Rating Place]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that  

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

Yea i understand what you are saying, but i think this is their 'proof' or atleast a supporting 'proof' that something was off with this game, since you bet much more(probably) then your usual betting amounts

Which is totally fucked, i am all against the books in most situations, if you lost they wouldnt think twice about marking it as L.

But from here i think your only option is legal or other means, as the forum's mediator (holy) has spoken with them and presumeably convinced about their submitted 'evidence' to him

Look at the 4th quarter scoring. There’s no way it was fixed. Holy has been wrong many times. He just doesn’t understand the flags.

XYes was the best example. Holy said the flag was proof. It wasn’t proof. Forum pressure reversed holy’s call and XYes paid.

I’m not trying to pick on holy here. It’s just right the player gets paid. Things like the below cause confusion. I’m not picking on holy to go after a person. I’m disagreeing with his decisions. $30,000 is involved here.

Flexie80 to holy

   

Absolutely bullshit what you are suggesting here.

It is very simple: Betby can spot value betting, not arbing.

My purpose is not to sling mud at you, my purpose is to teach you a bit of how sportsbetting works. Because from reading your posts I can see you don't know much yet. You probably dealt mostly with casino related cases. I am not saying you are a bad person but I'm saying you judgement is clouded by a lack of understanding of the sportsbetting business.  

[rohang]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that  

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

Yea i understand what you are saying, but i think this is their 'proof' or atleast a supporting 'proof' that something was off with this game, since you bet much more(probably) then your usual betting amounts

Which is totally fucked, i am all against the books in most situations, if you lost they wouldnt think twice about marking it as L.

But from here i think your only option is legal or other means, as the forum's mediator (holy) has spoken with them and presumeably convinced about their submitted 'evidence' to him

Look at the 4th quarter scoring. There’s no way it was fixed. Holy has been wrong many times. He just doesn’t understand the flags.

XYes was the best example. Holy said the flag was proof. It wasn’t proof. Forum pressure reversed holy’s call and XYes paid.

Yea i saw that, from the point by point betting it does look like it. Obviously cant really fix scoring or giving the other team a 3

[Rating Place]

I think they are insinuating that your average stakes dont match this particular bet.

Like you were betting lesser amounts and then this bet had large stakes which raised concerns

but you probably know that  

I understand what you're suggesting, but that doesn't really apply in my case.

And more importantly, Shuffle themselves stated that the issue was related to the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior. So this line of reasoning doesn't really apply here

Yea i understand what you are saying, but i think this is their 'proof' or atleast a supporting 'proof' that something was off with this game, since you bet much more(probably) then your usual betting amounts

Which is totally fucked, i am all against the books in most situations, if you lost they wouldnt think twice about marking it as L.

But from here i think your only option is legal or other means, as the forum's mediator (holy) has spoken with them and presumeably convinced about their submitted 'evidence' to him

Look at the 4th quarter scoring. There’s no way it was fixed. Holy has been wrong many times. He just doesn’t understand the flags.

XYes was the best example. Holy said the flag was proof. It wasn’t proof. Forum pressure reversed holy’s call and XYes paid.

Yea i saw that, from the point by point betting it does look like it. Obviously cant really fix scoring or giving the other team a 3

I also can see your point on large wagers.

Holy, just a suggestion if you haven’t done this already. Look at a line history. Look at a scoring history similar to what I posted above. Also look at how the OP bets.

That’s not how a professional or fixer bets. He bet a 3 team multi at odds of 1.85. It was adjusted for correlation and a rotten bet because of the odds.

It doesn’t matter who flagged the fix. What matters is if the game was proven to be fixed.

We haven’t seen the volume but these suspected fixed flags are AI driven. The OP’s bets may have been what triggered the flag but we would have to see the volume to know for sure. It can’t be eyes only.

A match fixer isn’t putting down $30k live at a book like Shuffle. It would be spread out or at a different book/exchange where this type of action wouldn’t be unique.

[degen01]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

[Rating Place]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

Hey degen, I respect your opinion and agree with most of what you say in a normal match fix. I was wrong about it being a major league. The multis are a way to obfuscate cheating and also go around limits which you obviously know. There are a ton of things that say match fixing which is why I waited 3 weeks before jumping in the thread. At first look it does scream fix.

Then I discussed a lot of things with OP. I also looked at line history and play by play during the 4th quarter. It was an 8 pt game starting the 4th quarter and got cut to 1 around the 6 minute mark. Admittedly, it was a back door cover but in total after communicating with OP , box score, play by play, this wasn’t fixed. I think you would come to the same conclusion had you seen all that.

But it is obvious why an AI would flag this.

[pvzera1]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

There are a few assumptions in your argument that don't reflect my actual situation.

First, these wager sizes are not unusual for my account. As I said, I have nearly 2 years on the platform, and over $3.3M total wagered. I regularly place high-value bets across sports, originals, and slots. This was not a one-off or out-of-character action.

Second, all of these bets were accepted by the platform without restriction. If the limits on this league were supposed to be low, or if my behavior was considered abnormal, the system should have prevented or limited the bets at the time they were placed, not accepted them and only raise concerns after they won (one week later).

Third, and most importantly, the original justification from Shuffle was not about my betting behavior. It was about alleged integrity concerns with the event itself.

That is a completely different issue.

Even if someone considers the wager sizes "unusual" (which, again, they are not in my case), that does not prove match-fixing. At most, it raises questions about player behavior, not about whether the event was compromised.

I have already provided my betting history during the mediation. The point is that this is not relevant to the core issue here, since the allegation was never about my account.

I have also authorized holy to share the bets publicly if he believes they are relevant to the case, as long as they are presented alongside Shuffle's counter-arguments so the context is not one-sided.

Speculation about what someone "would" or "would not" bet is not evidence.

[Rating Place]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

There are a few assumptions in your argument that don't reflect my actual situation.

First, these wager sizes are not unusual for my account. As I said, I have nearly 2 years on the platform, and over $3.3M total wagered. I regularly place high-value bets across sports, originals, and slots. This was not a one-off or out-of-character action.

Second, all of these bets were accepted by the platform without restriction. If the limits on this league were supposed to be low, or if my behavior was considered abnormal, the system should have prevented or limited the bets at the time they were placed, not accepted them and only raise concerns after they won (one week later).

Third, and most importantly, the original justification from Shuffle was not about my betting behavior. It was about alleged integrity concerns with the event itself.

That is a completely different issue.

Even if someone considers the wager sizes "unusual" (which, again, they are not in my case), that does not prove match-fixing. At most, it raises questions about player behavior, not about whether the event was compromised.

I have already provided my betting history during the mediation. The point is that this is not relevant to the core issue here, since the allegation was never about my account.

I have also authorized holy to share the bets publicly if he believes they are relevant to the case, as long as they are presented alongside Shuffle's counter-arguments so the context is not one-sided.

Speculation about what someone "would" or "would not" bet is not evidence.

degen is looking at first glance. I actually would have agreed with it the first couple of weeks of this case. That’s why I stayed silent. After deep dive, this game wasn’t fixed.

[holydarkness]

I'm still not fully comfortable with my betting history being posted publicly. However, if you believe that sharing it is necessary and will genuinely influence the decision or help validate the process, then I'm willing to agree, but in that case, it would also be fair for the relevant evidence from Shuffle to be presented alongside it, since the discussion would depend on that context.

That said, I'm still trying to understand the connection here. If the issue is with the event itself, I don't fully see how my betting pattern becomes the central factor.

From my side, I've cooperated fully and provided everything requested. My main concern remains the same, whether there is actual, verifiable evidence of an integrity issue with the event itself.

If you already have your verdict based on everything reviewed, I'm ready to hear it.

Please refer to the clauses that each of us write, when we entered this three-way binding agreement:

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

[...]
"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."
[...]

We both entered a binding agreement where Shuffle evidence are strictly confidential, and non-negotiable to be shared with public just to match your action of allowing your betting history to be shown to public.

So, I am asking once more, if you will give a written permission for me to share with public your betting history, so overseers can see and give their opinion, that I can use as other insights, or will you choose to keep them hidden and private, for-my-eyes-only, for a reason you're entitled to [but evidently raise questions from overseers], and I will draw the verdict that bind the three of us.

[degen01]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

There are a few assumptions in your argument that don't reflect my actual situation.

First, these wager sizes are not unusual for my account. As I said, I have nearly 2 years on the platform, and over $3.3M total wagered. I regularly place high-value bets across sports, originals, and slots. This was not a one-off or out-of-character action.

Second, all of these bets were accepted by the platform without restriction. If the limits on this league were supposed to be low, or if my behavior was considered abnormal, the system should have prevented or limited the bets at the time they were placed, not accepted them and only raise concerns after they won (one week later).

Third, and most importantly, the original justification from Shuffle was not about my betting behavior. It was about alleged integrity concerns with the event itself.

That is a completely different issue.

Even if someone considers the wager sizes "unusual" (which, again, they are not in my case), that does not prove match-fixing. At most, it raises questions about player behavior, not about whether the event was compromised.

I have already provided my betting history during the mediation. The point is that this is not relevant to the core issue here, since the allegation was never about my account.

I have also authorized holy to share the bets publicly if he believes they are relevant to the case, as long as they are presented alongside Shuffle's counter-arguments so the context is not one-sided.

Speculation about what someone "would" or "would not" bet is not evidence.

Wagering 3.3 million over the course of two years is peanuts and means nothing in this case

Speculation about why someone would place a wager isn't evidence, but it's going to raise concerns in cases like this

Asking why someone would place a 30k wager on a sketchy NBB game that has peanut limits at some of the sharpest books in the world is a legitimate question to raise. Asking why someone would post on a public forum that this is a large popular league and a "high-profile" event when anyone with a clue knows that's complete bs is a legitimate question to raise

Despite what you claim, your betting history is important in a case like this. What was your largest wager to date? What league was it on? How regularly are you wagering this large? Is this the biggest wager you've ever made on shuffle?

I'm not expecting answers to these questions, but if you can't see why it's relevant I'm not sure what to say. Depositing 30k just to shove it all on a sketchy NBB is going to raise eyebrows at any book in the world, this is why all these questions are relevant here

You placed a sketchy wager at a sketchy offshore crypto casino on a sketchy event and you're wondering why you're in this mess? If you're innocent and got caught in the crosshairs I feel for you, but ultimately, you put yourself in this terrible position

[Rating Place]

I've been doing this for a long time and I've known some of the sharpest and squarest bettors ranging from $20 to people who regularly wager 7 figures weekly/monthly. I always lean heavily on the players side for obvious reasons, but mostly because offshore books have so much power based on their meaningless licenses that serve only to protect the books and not the player

That being said...

Anyone who doesn't find these wagers suspicious has zero objectivity. I've known mega millionaires who were complete degenerates that would never even think of placing a 30k wager on a sketchy brazilian basketball league. Contrary to your previous posts, this is not a major league and some of the largest and sharpest books in the world only offer $100-500 limits on this league; why shuffle is offering limits in the thousands makes no sense to me

Rating Place keeps pointing out that the correlated parlays doesn't align with someone who's wagering on a fixed match, which again makes no sense. This is exactly what someone would do in this case. I'm assuming here, but OP was probably limited to $5000 on this straight bet, but shuffle's software would allow him to get the full 30k down using parlays

The way OP constantly gets defensive and doesn't want to reveal his wager history suggests there's a very good chance it's going to look off. Someone who rarely/never wagers this much money decides randomly one day to find any way possible to get down 30k on some low level sketchy NBB game?

Again, I'm not saying OP wagered on a fixed match. It's possible that he was in the midst of chasing and NBB was the next match to go off that he could get all this money down on. This could be one of those innocent people caught in the crosshairs, but to sit there and claim there's nothing suspicious about these wagers shows you have no objectivity in this case

There are a few assumptions in your argument that don't reflect my actual situation.

First, these wager sizes are not unusual for my account. As I said, I have nearly 2 years on the platform, and over $3.3M total wagered. I regularly place high-value bets across sports, originals, and slots. This was not a one-off or out-of-character action.

Second, all of these bets were accepted by the platform without restriction. If the limits on this league were supposed to be low, or if my behavior was considered abnormal, the system should have prevented or limited the bets at the time they were placed, not accepted them and only raise concerns after they won (one week later).

Third, and most importantly, the original justification from Shuffle was not about my betting behavior. It was about alleged integrity concerns with the event itself.

That is a completely different issue.

Even if someone considers the wager sizes "unusual" (which, again, they are not in my case), that does not prove match-fixing. At most, it raises questions about player behavior, not about whether the event was compromised.

I have already provided my betting history during the mediation. The point is that this is not relevant to the core issue here, since the allegation was never about my account.

I have also authorized holy to share the bets publicly if he believes they are relevant to the case, as long as they are presented alongside Shuffle's counter-arguments so the context is not one-sided.

Speculation about what someone "would" or "would not" bet is not evidence.

Wagering 3.3 million over the course of two years is peanuts and means nothing in this case

Speculation about why someone would place a wager isn't evidence, but it's going to raise concerns in cases like this

Asking why someone would place a 30k wager on a sketchy NBB game that has peanut limits at some of the sharpest books in the world is a legitimate question to raise. Asking why someone would post on a public forum that this is a large popular league and a "high-profile" event when anyone with a clue knows that's complete bs is a legitimate question to raise

Despite what you claim, your betting history is important in a case like this. What was your largest wager to date? What league was it on? How regularly are you wagering this large? Is this the biggest wager you've ever made on shuffle?

I'm not expecting answers to these questions, but if you can't see why it's relevant I'm not sure what to say. Depositing 30k just to shove it all on a sketchy NBB is going to raise eyebrows at any book in the world, this is why all these questions are relevant here

You placed a sketchy wager at a sketchy offshore crypto casino on a sketchy event and you're wondering why you're in this mess? If you're innocent and got caught in the crosshairs I feel for you, but ultimately, you put yourself in this terrible position

Once again everything you say is legit. I was with you for 3 weeks. After research, the match wasn’t fixed. Authorities are looking in to a February Brazilian accused match fixing. Without looking it up and from recent reading and what I remember, there was a new Serbian owner that brought in some Serbian players. 26-9 4th quarter.

No one is looking at March 7. No governing body said it’s fixed or even made a claim to possible match fixing.

[pvzera1]

So, I am asking once more, if you will give a written permission for me to share with public your betting history, so overseers can see and give their opinion, that I can use as other insights, or will you choose to keep them hidden and private, for-my-eyes-only, for a reason you're entitled to [but evidently raise questions from overseers], and I will draw the verdict that bind the three of us.

I understand the confidentiality terms regarding Shuffle's evidence, and I respect that. At the same time, I want to make sure this process remains fair and balanced.

I am willing to give permission for you to share my betting history publicly, but only under the condition that it is presented in proper context and clearly tied to whatever point is being evaluated, not as a standalone element that can be interpreted without the full picture.

Once again, I want to emphasize that the initial accusation was about the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior.

[holydarkness]

So, I am asking once more, if you will give a written permission for me to share with public your betting history, so overseers can see and give their opinion, that I can use as other insights, or will you choose to keep them hidden and private, for-my-eyes-only, for a reason you're entitled to [but evidently raise questions from overseers], and I will draw the verdict that bind the three of us.

I understand the confidentiality terms regarding Shuffle's evidence, and I respect that. At the same time, I want to make sure this process remains fair and balanced.

I am willing to give permission for you to share my betting history publicly, but only under the condition that it is presented in proper context and clearly tied to whatever point is being evaluated, not as a standalone element that can be interpreted without the full picture.

Once again, I want to emphasize that the initial accusation was about the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior.

Rest assured, my intention is just to post the images, without any markings or leading narrative, simply providing to public and listen to the overseers opinion as they read and interpret the logs in their own ways and how they mind work.

I have the permission?

[pvzera1]

So, I am asking once more, if you will give a written permission for me to share with public your betting history, so overseers can see and give their opinion, that I can use as other insights, or will you choose to keep them hidden and private, for-my-eyes-only, for a reason you're entitled to [but evidently raise questions from overseers], and I will draw the verdict that bind the three of us.

I understand the confidentiality terms regarding Shuffle's evidence, and I respect that. At the same time, I want to make sure this process remains fair and balanced.

I am willing to give permission for you to share my betting history publicly, but only under the condition that it is presented in proper context and clearly tied to whatever point is being evaluated, not as a standalone element that can be interpreted without the full picture.

Once again, I want to emphasize that the initial accusation was about the integrity of the event, not my account or betting behavior.

Rest assured, my intention is just to post the images, without any markings or leading narrative, simply providing to public and listen to the overseers opinion as they read and interpret the logs in their own ways and how they mind work.

I have the permission?

Yes, you have