Shuffle.com - Withdrawals Blocked and Cancelled After Legitimate Win

[holydarkness]

As i have been just following this case from the shadows, just for pure entertainment, i feel something needs to be answered here.

As soon as i saw holydarkness's response to rohang's questions, i immediatly thought, then why wasn't the player banned?

OP's response to the verdict made the same question i had in mind.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that if I had actually committed such a serious violation, my account would obviously be suspended or permanently banned. But it isn’t. My account still works normally.

I think this is a very pertinent question to ask. If OP really lend his account or use other player's funds, and Shuffle has proof of that, then why were only those bets with higher stakes voided and not all of them, and why wasn't the player immediatly banned from the platform?

The OP got his wager refunded, only the winning voided, and he made this thread, though at this point all signs point to him being guilty [covering up and all], can you imagine if he got his account closed?

Two guesses: one, Shuffle being open minded and fair and want it to be totally cleared before taking the drastic measure or maybe Shuffle just want to be lenient on him and give him a stern warning by following the flag to void and will ban for second offense. If we want to get his account locked following my verdict, I believe it can be arranged rather easily.

You set the OP up. Why did you introduce that the case be binding. It was a fix just like BetPanda and who knows how many more.

Did you bother to really read what Shuffle said as their counter-accusation on the first place? They're all over the thread, quoted over and over.

[...]

Dear pvzera1,

Your bets placed on the match Pato Basquete vs SC Corinthians Paulista on 07.03.2026 from 21:58 UTC onwards have been reviewed by our third-party integrity monitoring partners. Following that review, credible integrity concerns have been identified in relation to the event.

As a result, the bets have been voided in accordance with our Sports Rules and Regulations, which form part of our Terms and Conditions. The relevant provisions state:

"Bets may be suspended indefinitely if result integrity is in doubt. In cases of suspected match-fixing, Shuffle may delay or void settlements. ... Shuffle may also void bets at its sole discretion where credible suspicion of manipulation exists, even in the absence of official confirmation."

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact support. However, our decision on this matter is final.

Kind regards,
Shuffle Team

The accusation is in red, what I marked in blue is the clause, the word preceeding the sentence in blue is a third-grader level of comprehension that they add to make it easy to understand that they have a ToS for it, under that opening, hence the cut and resume with the next sentence instead of total cut that'll emphasize that the case was the first sentence in the clause.

[Rating Place]

As i have been just following this case from the shadows, just for pure entertainment, i feel something needs to be answered here.

As soon as i saw holydarkness's response to rohang's questions, i immediatly thought, then why wasn't the player banned?

OP's response to the verdict made the same question i had in mind.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that if I had actually committed such a serious violation, my account would obviously be suspended or permanently banned. But it isn’t. My account still works normally.

I think this is a very pertinent question to ask. If OP really lend his account or use other player's funds, and Shuffle has proof of that, then why were only those bets with higher stakes voided and not all of them, and why wasn't the player immediatly banned from the platform?

The OP got his wager refunded, only the winning voided, and he made this thread, though at this point all signs point to him being guilty [covering up and all], can you imagine if he got his account closed?

Two guesses: one, Shuffle being open minded and fair and want it to be totally cleared before taking the drastic measure or maybe Shuffle just want to be lenient on him and give him a stern warning by following the flag to void and will ban for second offense. If we want to get his account locked following my verdict, I believe it can be arranged rather easily.

You set the OP up. Why did you introduce that the case be binding. It was a fix just like BetPanda and who knows how many more.

Did you bother to really read what Shuffle said as their counter-accusation on the first place? They're all over the thread, quoted over and over.

[...]

Dear pvzera1,

Your bets placed on the match Pato Basquete vs SC Corinthians Paulista on 07.03.2026 from 21:58 UTC onwards have been reviewed by our third-party integrity monitoring partners. Following that review, credible integrity concerns have been identified in relation to the event.

As a result, the bets have been voided in accordance with our Sports Rules and Regulations, which form part of our Terms and Conditions. The relevant provisions state:

"Bets may be suspended indefinitely if result integrity is in doubt. In cases of suspected match-fixing, Shuffle may delay or void settlements. ... Shuffle may also void bets at its sole discretion where credible suspicion of manipulation exists, even in the absence of official confirmation."

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact support. However, our decision on this matter is final.

Kind regards,
Shuffle Team

The accusation is in red, what I marked in blue is the clause, the word preceeding the sentence in blue is a third-grader level of comprehension that they add to make it easy to understand that they have a ToS for it, under that opening, hence the cut and resume with the next sentence instead of total cut that'll emphasize that the case was the first sentence in the clause.

holy doesn't understand flags. When an unusual bet comes in a flag goes up. It could be before the game starts or during the game. It's AI and done instantly in case someone wants to halt bets. It can also be done automatically by the provider. After the game is when they determine if the game is fixed.

[holydarkness]

The accusation is in red, what I marked in blue is the clause, the word preceeding the sentence in blue is a third-grader level of comprehension that they add to make it easy to understand that they have a ToS for it, under that opening, hence the cut and resume with the next sentence instead of total cut that'll emphasize that the case was the first sentence in the clause.

holy doesn't understand flags. When an unusual bet comes in a flag goes up. It could be before the game starts or during the game. It's AI and done instantly in case someone wants to halt bets. It can also be done automatically by the provider. After the game is when they determine if the game is fixed.

Then be a man and accept the challenge, escrow the fund and we'll see who's right and who's wrong instead of keep running around and jumping thread and repetitively saying holy this, holy that, flag this, flag that. Kindly put the money where your mouth are.

[Rating Place]

The accusation is in red, what I marked in blue is the clause, the word preceeding the sentence in blue is a third-grader level of comprehension that they add to make it easy to understand that they have a ToS for it, under that opening, hence the cut and resume with the next sentence instead of total cut that'll emphasize that the case was the first sentence in the clause.

holy doesn't understand flags. When an unusual bet comes in a flag goes up. It could be before the game starts or during the game. It's AI and done instantly in case someone wants to halt bets. It can also be done automatically by the provider. After the game is when they determine if the game is fixed.

Then be a man and accept the challenge, escrow the fund and we'll see who's right and who's wrong instead of keep running around and jumping thread and repetitively saying holy this, holy that, flag this, flag that. Kindly put the money where your mouth are.

You are a crook. In the last bet you offered here's how it went.

1. holy offers a bet.
2. I never agree.
3. holy writes up the bet, says it's binding and changed the words and meaning from the original proposal. Then he said that I took the bait.

[T1HGO]

First of all i would like to say i am a big fan of baba2020 posts. It reminds me of a character called Luther from Key & Peele sketch show, Obama's angry translator.

Now my take of this case.

I completely understand OP's frustration of moving goalposts and proof provided not being enough. I would be pissed too.

However, when you open a thread like this, you need to prepared to be scrutinized and be ready to prove your case is bullet-proof, no matter how many accusations they throw at you. As some users keep insisting on the matchfixing argument, i ask, IF (big if here) OP is indeed guilty of these account sharing accusations, does it even matter if the match was fixed or not?

As any legal court case, if new evidence/facts comes to light, it will not be ignored. I don't see why it would be different here.

Now the way i see it, OP has in his hands(assuming he's telling the truth) a way to completely crush Shuffles accusations by simply providing what was requested, and debunk Shuffle's whole case. I think most overseers will agree with me when i say that, the same way OP expects overseers to not believe Shuffle's accusations at face value, we can't also take a simple "i didn't do it" at face value either. If you want to convince overseers to support your case, pleading the 5th is not the way.

If i were in OP's position, and i had in my possession a way to completely crush Shuffle's accusations by simply providing 2 screenshots, i would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

Edit: holydarkness, Rating Place, for a second, i though i posted in the wrong thread, as i was eating popcorn and watching your other thread, and when i saw 3 new comments after posting this comment, and the comments were you fighting, i though "shit, i posted on the wrong thread".
I didn't. Come on guys, keep it on the other thread.

[Rating Place]

First of all i would like to say i am a big fan of baba2020 posts. It reminds me of a character called Luther from Key & Peele sketch show, Obama's angry translator.

Now my take of this case.

I completely understand OP's frustration of moving goalposts and proof provided not being enough. I would be pissed too.

However, when you open a thread like this, you need to prepared to be scrutinized and be ready to prove your case is bullet-proof, no matter how many accusations they throw at you. As some users keep insisting on the matchfixing argument, i ask, IF (big if here) OP is indeed guilty of these account sharing accusations, does it even matter if the match was fixed or not?

As any legal court case, if new evidence/facts comes to light, it will not be ignored. I don't see why it would be different here.

Now the way i see it, OP has in his hands(assuming he's telling the truth) a way to completely crush Shuffles accusations by simply providing what was requested, and debunk Shuffle's whole case. I think most overseers will agree with me when i say that, the same way OP expects overseers to not believe Shuffle's accusations at face value, we can't also take a simple "i didn't do it" at face value either. If you want to convince overseers to support your case, pleading the 5th is not the way.

If i were in OP's position, and i had in my possession a way to completely crush Shuffle's accusations by simply providing 2 screenshots, i would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

Edit: holydarkness, Rating Place, for a second, i though i posted in the wrong thread, as i was eating popcorn and watching your other thread, and when i saw 3 new comments after posting this comment, and the comments were you fighting, i though "shit, i posted on the wrong thread".
I didn't. Come on guys, keep it on the other thread.

where is their proof that the OP did something wrong? holy throws a lot of crap against the wall hoping that something sticks.

[nutildah]

So it appears the root issue was placing bets on behalf of others and not "match fixing," although this was made confusing by Shuffle. They could have been clearer from the start so we didn't have to sit around guessing what the actual problem was.

Ultimately, as with many such cases, it comes down to the casino's word vs. the player's word. And now we have Holy's word. Who do you trust out of those 3? Its really up to you.

I think most overseers will agree with me when i say that, the same way OP expects overseers to not believe Shuffle's accusations at face value, we can't also take a simple "i didn't do it" at face value either. If you want to convince overseers to support your case, pleading the 5th is not the way.

If i were in OP's position, and i had in my possession a way to completely crush Shuffle's accusations by simply providing 2 screenshots, i would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

Agreed.

[T1HGO]

where is their proof that the OP did something wrong? holy throws a lot of crap against the wall hoping that something sticks.

Apparently, if i understood correctly, holydarkness has that proof. That's why i talked about not believing anything at face value. We could sit here and debate if holydarkness is the most corrupt person on the planet, or the best mediator in the history of humanity. Changes nothing. The only thing relevant right now, at least to me, is that OP has the golden opportunity to slam dunk this case into the trashbin.

Because let's just enter theoryland here for a second. Imagine OP really bet for someone else as the accusation says. I would argue OP should have been banned as it's a clear violation of TOS. This is why i questioned that, if Shuffle has proof of that and holydarkness has seen it, why wasn't the player banned and all funds confiscated and not only those bets in question? Normally these actions result in instant ban, so the fact they accuse OP of that and still allow him play normally is VERY weird to me.

Now, if OP shows what was requested, is there even room for doubt that OP's case is bullet-proof and should be paid? What is shuffle gonna say? That the sceenshots provided by OP were forged? lol.

[Rating Place]

where is their proof that the OP did something wrong? holy throws a lot of crap against the wall hoping that something sticks.

Apparently, if i understood correctly, holydarkness has that proof. That's why i talked about not believing anything at face value. We could sit here and debate if holydarkness is the most corrupt person on the planet, or the best mediator in the history of humanity. Changes nothing. The only thing relevant right now, at least to me, is that OP has the golden opportunity to slam dunk this case into the trashbin.

Because let's just enter theoryland here for a second. Imagine OP really bet for someone else as the accusation says. I would argue OP should have been banned as it's a clear violation of TOS. This is why i questioned that, if Shuffle has proof of that and holydarkness has seen it, why wasn't the player banned and all funds confiscated and not only those bets in question? Normally these actions result in instant ban, so the fact they accuse OP of that and still allow him play normally is VERY weird to me.

Now, if OP shows what was requested, is there even room for doubt that OP's case is bullet-proof and should be paid? What is shuffle gonna say? That the sceenshots provided by OP were forged? lol.

holy doesn't have any proof. The whole thing was a fix. holy made it "my eyes only" and binding.

[T1HGO]

holy doesn't have any proof. The whole thing was a fix. holy made it "my eyes only" and binding.

Okay, let's enter theoryland once more.

Let's imagine, holydarkness has lied and has no proof of anything. What changes? What is the real consquence of his verdict? Influencing others? I am not a sheep, and i can think with my own head. I will not blindly follow someone else's opinions and i hope others don't too.

So let's make the following brain exercise. If OP decided to raise a flag against Shuffle, realistically speaking, would anyone support it right now? I don't think so. Not until OP debunks these accusations. Would you support it?
Because at the end of the day that's what will matter and not holydarkness's verdict. At least this is how i see it, and will accept contradicting opinions on this topic.

OR

OP is free to not provide anything and just let this die and try to seek help at casinoguru or askgamblers or something. But if OP opt's to go this route, this case is done here.

Just my 2 cents.

[Rating Place]

holy doesn't have any proof. The whole thing was a fix. holy made it "my eyes only" and binding.

Okay, let's enter theoryland once more.

Let's imagine, holydarkness has lied and has no proof of anything. What changes? What is the real consquence of his verdict? Influencing others? I am not a sheep, and i can think with my own head. I will not blindly follow someone else's opinions and i hope others don't too.

So let's make the following brain exercise. If OP decided to raise a flag against Shuffle, realistically speaking, would anyone support it right now? I don't think so. Not until OP debunks these accusations. Would you support it?
Because at the end of the day that's what will matter and not holydarkness's verdict. At least this is how i see it, and will accept contradicting opinions on this topic.

OR

OP is free to not provide anything and just let this die and try to seek help at casinoguru or askgamblers or something. But if OP opt's to go this route, this case is done here.

Just my 2 cents.

this is so long, what's the accusation? Shuffle has to prove the accusation. Let's see them do it. I place bets from different locations and different devices all the time.

[T1HGO]

this is so long, what's the accusation? Shuffle has to prove the accusation. Let's see them do it. I place bets from different locations and different devices all the time.

Fair. Now that you brought it up, i didn't think of that from that angle. Just as an example, if anyone can clarify this for me, and i genuinly don't know. Let's imagine OP normally bets from his PC, but for some reason, he placed bets for example from his phone using his mobile phone internet connection. Both devices used by OP, but different devices and different IP's. Could OP still easily prove his innocence like that?

[Rating Place]

this is so long, what's the accusation? Shuffle has to prove the accusation. Let's see them do it. I place bets from different locations and different devices all the time.

Fair. Now that you brought it up, i didn't think of that from that angle. Just as an example, if anyone can clarify this for me, and i genuinly don't know. Let's imagine OP normally bets from his PC, but for some reason, he placed bets for example from his phone using his mobile phone internet connection. Both devices used by OP, but different devices and different IP's. Could OP still easily prove his innocence like that?

you can’t prove a negative and you can’t prove innocence. I post from 3 devices, maybe more. Sometimes I’m using different IP addresses. No way can you justify stealing $30k for this. Again, holy makes up rules.

[pvzera1]

As requested, I have now privately provided holydarkness with both my IP/login history and the blockchain transaction related to the deposit used for the bets in question.

At this point, there is absolutely nothing left for me to prove.

I have now responded to every accusation thrown at me after the original "event integrity" narrative completely collapsed. First it was supposedly match integrity, then betting behavior, then account sharing, then deposits, IPs, wallets, sessions, and whatever else could be brought up afterward in an attempt to justify confiscating my winnings.

And even after all this, I am still the only side actually providing evidence.

I completed level 3 verification.
I completed the liveness check successfully.
I provided betting history.
I provided videos.
I provided account information.
I provided IP history.
I provided deposit transactions.

Meanwhile, Shuffle still has not publicly presented a single concrete piece of proof.

[T1HGO]

you can’t prove a negative and you can’t prove innocence. I post from 3 devices, maybe more. Sometimes I’m using different IP addresses. No way can you justify stealing $30k for this. Again, holy makes up rules.

Listen man, i think you are giving holydarkness too much importance and too much credit here. He isn't God, a mythical being, the owner of bitcointalk forum, a legendary pokémon, and he didn't write the bible to make rules. He's a guy serving as mediator, with opinions and beliefs just as anybody else. So, to say he's making up rules is crediting him too much power.

It's totally legitimate and fair to disagree with his verdict. After i read his verdict, i felt the need to raise a question, like why the player wasn't banned if he has seen proof of account sharing, which doesn't exactly align with his verdict, in my opinion. And to me, that's the beauty of this forum compared to other mediation places like guru or askgamblers. It's a public forum, and me and everybody else is free to share opinions and perspectives of cases, and disagree or agree with the mediator's opinion/verdict whatever you want to call it. This is why i praised his initiative of inviting overseers to share opinions.

I refuse to take things at face value. My stance on this case to me is completely neutral. Because i'm not buying the argument of shuffle's side for having proof of the player's wrong doing and not immediatly banning him, and i also don't understand why OP is hesitating in providing what was asked when it could immediatly debunk this mess.

Edit: as i was writing this, OP said he has provided the requested information. Great to see. Hopefully no more new accusations and requests now, because changing accusations once is questionable, twice is sus as hell.

[Rating Place]

you can’t prove a negative and you can’t prove innocence. I post from 3 devices, maybe more. Sometimes I’m using different IP addresses. No way can you justify stealing $30k for this. Again, holy makes up rules.

Listen man, i think you are giving holydarkness too much importance and too much credit here. He isn't God, a mythical being, the owner of bitcointalk forum, a legendary pokémon, and he didn't write the bible to make rules. He's a guy serving as mediator, with opinions and beliefs just as anybody else. So, to say he's making up rules is crediting him too much power.

It's totally legitimate and fair to disagree with his verdict. After i read his verdict, i felt the need to raise a question, like why the player wasn't banned if he has seen proof of account sharing, which doesn't exactly align with his verdict, in my opinion. And to me, that's the beauty of this forum compared to other mediation places like guru or askgamblers. It's a public forum, and me and everybody else is free to share opinions and perspectives of cases, and disagree or agree with the mediator's opinion/verdict whatever you want to call it. This is why i praised his initiative of inviting overseers to share opinions.

I refuse to take things at face value. My stance on this case to me is completely neutral. Because i'm not buying the argument of shuffle's side for having proof of the player's wrong doing and not immediatly banning him, and i also don't understand why OP is hesitating in providing what was asked when it could immediatly debunk this mess.

Edit: as i was writing this, OP said he has provided the requested information. Great to see. Hopefully no more new accusations and requests now, because changing accusations once is questionable, twice is sus as hell.

You're not stupid. You saw what holy did when he switched campaigns to BetPanda. There's no way to prove that two people used the account. What's going on now is just for show.

People should use AskGamblers, LCB and OSGA depending on their location.

[holydarkness]

this is so long, what's the accusation? Shuffle has to prove the accusation. Let's see them do it. I place bets from different locations and different devices all the time.

Fair. Now that you brought it up, i didn't think of that from that angle. Just as an example, if anyone can clarify this for me, and i genuinly don't know. Let's imagine OP normally bets from his PC, but for some reason, he placed bets for example from his phone using his mobile phone internet connection. Both devices used by OP, but different devices and different IP's. Could OP still easily prove his innocence like that?

Got that covered in the very first place even before the mediation began as this is not my first rodeo and those are basic questions.

In short, generally, for your knowledge, yes, it's safe. Many casinos [not just shuffle] use a sophisticated detecting system. They don't rely solely on X phone and Y PC and xx address, to avoid false-positive. I am not allowed to share beyond this by the confidentiality with literally all of my casino contacts. But yeah, to answer this case's specific question, the statement already fetched and recorded before trial began. And if you're worried with you changing from multi device, as long as they're yours, casinos have their way to tell that it is not a case like above.

Anyway, got OP's PM, but I'm with my [way too early] morning coffee. I'll read later when I'm less... grizzly-like.

[Rating Place]

Ok, OP, I am trying to shoot in the dark here as Tim is still clamming shut. Uhh... do you happen to perhaps trigger their flag in completely different way than what we think? Namely instead of the match itself, it was your account that raise suspicion. Did you place your bet in your home, IP, and usual device, or were you perhaps happened to travel abroad or borrowing friend's device?

No, nothing unusual on my side.

The bets were placed normally from my usual device, using my normal account, with no suspicious activity, no traveling abroad, and no borrowed device involved.

My account was fully verified, and I also completed the additional Level 3 verification and liveness check they requested without any issues.

They already confirmed that the issue was not related to my account, my IP, my device, or my deposits. Their justification was always about the event itself and the supposed "integrity concerns" regarding that match.

I'm nudging Tim again.

It’s a guess on their part. It’s not a secret. They know mouse movements, clicks, etc. If I’m watching a game and betting , the behavioral tracking will be different than if I’m just straight betting not watching TV. That’s not proof to confiscate money.

[holydarkness]

Umm... OP, I thought you said this?

Ok, OP, I am trying to shoot in the dark here as Tim is still clamming shut. Uhh... do you happen to perhaps trigger their flag in completely different way than what we think? Namely instead of the match itself, it was your account that raise suspicion. Did you place your bet in your home, IP, and usual device, or were you perhaps happened to travel abroad or borrowing friend's device?

No, nothing unusual on my side.

The bets were placed normally from my usual device, using my normal account, with no suspicious activity, no traveling abroad, and no borrowed device involved.

My account was fully verified, and I also completed the additional Level 3 verification and liveness check they requested without any issues.

They already confirmed that the issue was not related to my account, my IP, my device, or my deposits. Their justification was always about the event itself and the supposed "integrity concerns" regarding that match.

May I ask why, then, when I look into your IP login details, on rough estimate of the date of the match, you're 9 hours car-drive away from the usual spot you place your bet?



I mean... if you're not going to take my opinion at face value, and you don't want the IP log to be set to public, we can nominate other person in DT to verify what I found, suppose they're willing to help verify.

Edit: also, being as vague as I can because the data sent privately to me, I have to admit an error from me in my previous request, to prevent a mistake in drawing conclusion before it is made. I am not a blockchain expert. SO... yeah, when I ask for your depo address, I didn't factor in that players can use any wallet, including non-custodial wallet that will make things for non-blockchain-expert like me can only stare at the screen.

If you don't want me to revise, do you mind to just send me your depo and wd history instead?

[pvzera1]

That has always been completely normal behavior for my account.

The place you are referring to is only around a 1-hour flight away from where I live, and it is a location many Brazilians frequently travel to and from for work and personal reasons. There is absolutely nothing unusual about that, and my login pattern throughout nearly 2 years of account history has consistently been like this. I have also sent you additional proof regarding this privately via PM.

On top of that, the screenshot/log only shows “2 months ago”, not the exact date and exact timing of the bets themselves, so you cannot accurately conclude that I was supposedly somewhere unusual at the precise moment the wagers were placed.

And to be completely clear: I was not traveling abroad, I was not using a different device, and I was not using someone else’s account or allowing someone else to use mine.

Again, this is exactly what I meant when I said every answer simply creates another endless chain of speculation completely disconnected from the original accusation.