Okay, let's do this. I'll try to untangle this best possible by addressing each topic. Overseers,
tl;dr: is at the bottom of each part, posed as a question to Rating Place.
First thing first, I thought you said,
Just stop with the threats.
It’s gambling 101 that books can’t post players bets. You look for gotcha moments. Everyone knew what I wanted but you. It's the same with 70 books. It wasn't meant to be directed at you. It was an example of why Betby isn't making the calls. Everything they do is AI profiling, auto-risk management that can be overridden and odds.
Do whatever you want. I don’t monetize my account. My assistant works faster than yours and I’m not scared of my assistant. I’ll get 1.5 years of you posting books are the middlemen and all your other wrong statements in an hour. I’ll prove it in a voluminous way.
Then you tell a player that withdrawing his deposit is a settlement agreement and getting paid is a gesture of good will. All from a scam sportsbook that paid you in a signature campaign.
How about ruling for XYes in the eyes only case for value betting, then the forum getting the player paid. That’s just to start. You take my every word literally when others know what I was saying. Talk about twisting words and meanings. Do whatever you want, it would be fun to start “The Best of holydarkness” thread. I'll add your consistent insults and paranoia. You already have one thread "Holydarkness and Casino Disputes—Something’s Fishy", I'll add another.
[...]
But then earlier on this thread you said,
I wanted to get this out today as I just saw the negative trust given by holydarkness. I rarely use AI but made an exception here for it to help out with some things and write coherently. I'll get links for anything asked for and can add much more if wanted.
So, the assistant that you're not scared of [as you should be, an employer that's scared of his own employee is... weird, so, good for you], is actually AI? Haha, okay.
Moving to the matters at hand,
Part One
I wanted to get this out today as I just saw the negative trust given by holydarkness. I rarely use AI but made an exception here for it to help out with some things and write coherently. I'll get links for anything asked for and can add much more if wanted.
Our disagreement is a year-long debate on who makes the final decision between a sportsbook and an odds provider. That disagreement has now been turned into a negative-trust accusation by holydarkness:
“Take this user's statement with heavy consideration and fact check as the user has tendency to butchering words and spin statements into different narrative that meet his agenda [see my post in reference for an instance].”
No, the feedback I left was not because of the debate of who make final call or whatever. It's purely as what I wrote in the feedback: your tendency to butchering words and spin statements into a completely different narrative, that I'll gladly break them all down, but I'll stick to I can recall from the top of my mind because I don't want to waste too much of my time to fish the other instances where you try to pull these stunts.
Here are our two positions placed back-to-back so everyone can see the direct contradiction.
My statement (June 12, 2025):
“I have no idea why people keep telling you that the provider makes all decisions. Maybe they don't know or are just trying to shift blame. Each sportsbook makes the final decision and if someone get sued, the sportsbook will be the defendant, not the provider. What if two sportsbooks use the same provider but have different rules. The odds provider does exactly what the name says, they are odds providers with the addition of being a profiler.”
holydarkness’s response (same day):
“Because it's four different contacts from four different casinos telling me this? Wait, five. ... They all came to the same answer.”
“the instruction and the flag come from the provider”
“The flag always comes from provider”
“the flag made by the provider was specifically about arbitrage bet”
Later in the same thread, Ratings Place replied:
“holydarkness, he does make a good point. You have to stop believing everything the casino and casino reps tell you. All 5 of your contacts were wrong about odds providers. Now you are saying XYes showed proof of arbitrage betting. They didn’t show you any proof.
Getting flagged doesn’t mean arbitrage. It could be CLV (closing line value). You will get flagged for CLV and that’s what most likely happened.”
holydarkness’s reply:
“Amuse and enlighten me at the same time, then. I ask five different casino representatives about sportsbook providers, and they were all wrong? All five of them? Why is that and who or what should I believe then, and why?”
Comment: my position was clear — the sportsbook makes the final decision. holydarkness’s position was the opposite — that the provider makes the decisive call and the sportsbook is effectively just the middleman. That is the core disagreement. Public Bitcointalk indexing also preserves holydarkness saying, in another sportsbook dispute, that if a provider cancels a bet the sportsbook often cannot do much because it is just a “middle man.”
In the XYes case, holydarkness even offered a 1.56 million USD escrow bet to “prove” the provider sent the flag. That misses the point. Whether a provider sends a flag is not the same thing as proving the provider makes the final customer-facing decision. Providers flag accounts all the time. They are paid by sportsbooks to supply feeds, profiling, and risk signals.
Let's go to the real chain of communication, and I'm glad your AI brushed the 1.56 million USD, that I'll discuss later, at the bottom of the post. To be honest, I am not sure what's the best approach for the overseers on how to present the fact of the real discussion as it spreads on multiple posts and quoting them here will be chaotic.
So I think a screenshot of the entire pages on the thread where the conversation happened will hopefully be adequte, but I ended up with dozens screenshots that I am somewhat sure no one interested to read all, because the discussion happened in between other's input too. So, I narrow it down to relevant posts where me and Rating Place exchange communication, as much as I can [I believe those who are interested can and will get a better context by visiting the
thread itself]:
From post #99 [a bit off screen] to #116 I've patiently tried to explain to Rating Place that he mixed up two cases that happened simultaneously, asked him to calm down and clear his mind, so he can approach the case level-headedly. Yet he insist that I lied and made up rules about value bet, despite the multiple patient explanation that the thread is about arbing, and the value betting case is the neighboring case.
As Rating Place insist on going full throtle bull in china market [or whatever idiom it is], I approached by going to his level and introduce shock value where I challenge him an insane number of 1,560,000 USD, that the case is about arbitrage, the flag shown to me is the provider flagging for arbitrage, and that indeed the flag is from the provider.
An interesting thing to point out that [to whoever follows Rating Place, it must be a well-known trait of him to post and to edit, sometimes even ninja-edit] an edit was made as depicted on post #126 [pay attention to the timestamp] that I happened to quote and immortalize the original post as we're both online and the exchange of communication happens instantly, as shown on #130 below [again, pay attention to the timestamp]:
Then on post #135, Rating Place finally tried to upped the game by taking my call out, asking the amount wagered, that I prompty draw him a written contract, this time to tell him that I am dead serious that the evidence in my hand is indeed true, and his rant for all the time about how provider didn't flag for arbitrage [#117] is wrong.
And here above, we witnessed him realizing the dire danger he's in, and backed down from his challenge.
Rating Place,
the written contract is still available if you really want to enter and bind yourself to it and prove yourself, as you basically claimed all my statements are wrong and fabricated to side with casinos. Escrow that number, I'll show it here to the entire overseers of this thread that you dedicate to expose me. I have it in my hand that Betby indeed flagged that user for
arbitrage, the flag come from the provider.
You can either take the challenge or eat your word and take the shame all over your stay in this forum for pretending to know everything, even when it is factually false.
Part Two
holydarkness also claimed I accused him of saying that “Betby makes the decision for 70 books.” That is a mischaracterization. I used the example of many sportsbooks using the same provider precisely to prove the opposite point: if one provider truly made the final decision for all of them, then those books would all handle flagged or value-betting players the same way. They do not. Different books using Betby treat similar situations differently, which is only possible because each sportsbook still makes its own final call under its own rules and terms.
Please show to public where I claimed you accuse me of saying that “Betby makes the decision for 70 books.” Do it, please. You can't?
Here, let me help you.
This part, I believe, come from
this thread, where the beginning of the issue itself is from #99
Betpanda has given us the runaround for 2 months. The only thing that’s needed is for BetPanda to post the wagers. Then people can make their own decision on if it’s a bad line.
I believe in no way anyone will interpret that post as an urge by Rating Place for BetPanda to let OP get access to his account. After I explained on #102 to public that based on my knowledge and past discussion with several casinos, for casino to post players' betting history is not possible due to consumer's data protection law, that he revised his demand on #103 to looks and stays relevant:
Umm... with no intention to insult you, I suggest you to ignore those who suggest and/or demand BetPanda [or other casinos, for a fact] to publish your betting history from their side. Far as I know [and by it, I mean I've been talking with several casinos representatives [both plurals, as in so many people in so many different casinos]] they can't publish it online, even with player's blessings due to GDPR and it's law-of-customer's-data-protection equivalence across the globe, as well as the one they have, that is demanded to be published, with or without the player's blessings, is a violation to their own proprietary.
The data from their side is theirs, not yours.
So, even with your blessings, they can't just post list of your bets publicly as it will automatically violate customer's data protection at the worst, and/as-well-as, within their right to retain from sharing publicly what is considered [and I pretty much sure you've agreed when you clicked ToS checkbox] as theirs.
Best way is to get a for-private-eyes-only verification. It is still have to go through a lot of red tape of GDPR [and its equivalent] and high-chairs approval, but it is more likely to happen rather than demanding public publishing. So... yeah, please just ignore the ignorant idea to publish them for public eyes.
Why do you keep believing these untrue rules and laws that the books keep telling you? Tell BetPanda to allow the OP to view his account and the OP can post the bets. There are no laws against that. It should have been done 2 months ago. Even though unnecessary, for my eyes only didn't work last time with XYes.
Of which, he then bring cros-thread to
this one, where he begin his statement spinning,
On the other Betpanda case you said it was illegal for the OP to post his bets. Now you say all books hands may be tied by Betby when we know Jackpotter changed what Betby said and Betcoin said they make the decision. Only the bad Betby books don’t change. The good ones look independently when questioned. I know of 70 Betby crypto books. Betby doesn’t make the decision for all 70 crypto books.
Nowhere in above thread [any overseers are free to scrutinize both thread] that I said it was illegal for OP to post his bets. It IS illegal for casinos, GDPR and all, hence asking for it to be published as per #99 is impossible.
And the escalation of the situation [not the peak itself], I believe can be illustrated nicely on this full-quote:
On the other Betpanda case you said it was illegal for the OP to post his bets. Now you say all books hands may be tied by Betby when we know Jackpotter changed what Betby said and Betcoin said they make the decision. Only the bad Betby books don’t change. The good ones look independently when questioned. I know of 70 Betby crypto books. Betby doesn’t make the decision for all 70 crypto books.
I don't usually read your post as I put you on ignore, but you happened to post while I'm on screen and part of your post were quoted to me by TG Bot and curiosity win. So uhh... do you... even read... what you write?
They're basically incoherent words blended together that barely has any relation to this topic and what's currently discussed in the posts you quoted. Please stop embarass yourself.
I’ll make it simple.
1. You lied for Betpanda by saying players can’t post bets.
2. Now you lied again by saying all Betby books have the final decision made by Betby when there are 70 Betby crypto books. All the good ones override Betby or have their risk management set on the Betby settings to limit.
There’s reason we see the same Betby books over and over again and not all 70. Betby is no different than Kambi or any other provider.
1. I am sure I never say players can't post bets, please don't twist my words. What I said was casino can't post player's bets, due to GDPR and other customer data protection laws across the globe. Please quote me where I said that, or I'll be forced to consider to put a warning on your account for untrusted trait of twisting words, as this is not the first time you pulled the stunt.
As per what you can verify yourself on the other thread that you referred [the one that you missed that the account being viewable]. This is one plus one equals to two, if you bother to really read and try to understand. BetPanda [like other casinos] can't post the player's betting history, due to reason above; "one". Thus they temporarily unlocked and grant access to player, so they can post it themselves; "plus one". That way, no customer-data-protection being violated, as player posted their history themselves; "equals to two".
2. Mostly like number 1. Quote me where I said,
now, that I'll assume your figure of speech that I said it here on this thread, that all betby books have the final decision made by Betby. I believe what I said was that --on this case-- once principals are taken, my contact most likely can't overrule the higher-decision-maker. So... quote me.
Then things spiralling down, Rating-Place-style where he write incoherent words and mixing words, partial quotes, etc., where we landed here.
Rating Place,
I am still waiting your concrete evidence where I said in that thread that players can’t post bets and that all Betby books have the final decision made by Betby.
All eyes are on you now. You're bringing this to Repu board. So, this is your chance to shine,
quote me on those two threads that I said you said I said.
Part Three
But there is a bigger, year-long pattern here.
This disagreement is not limited to the XYes case. For over a year I have consistently argued that when a player wins fair bets, the sportsbook owes him both his deposit and his full winnings.
holydarkness has repeatedly taken the opposite position, saying the book is within its rights to void the winnings and only return the deposit. His exact words in the XYes thread (June 27, 2025):
“LOL. The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. ... They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. ... If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.”
holydarkness said what in 27th June 2025?
Part Four
There is even a current BetPanda case in Scam Accusations that fits this broader pattern, and I mention it carefully because it is still a live accusation. The thread “Betpanda stole my 500 dollars” is currently listed on the Scam Accusations board, and the public search snippet from that thread shows discussion of a “deposit settlement rule,” with the snippet itself criticizing that rule. I am not overstating that thread or pretending it proves every detail by itself. I am pointing to it as another live example of the same recurring issue: deposit-return framing being treated as meaningful resolution in a dispute where the real argument is about what the player should have been paid. Bitcointalk search results also show holydarkness was in BetPanda’s signature-campaign thread, which makes it fair to scrutinize his judgment when he adopts sportsbook-friendly framing in BetPanda disputes. ()
[...]
Realistically, what alternative did I have if I hadn’t withdrawn the money? Take the matter to a Curaçao court?
[...]
Uhh... ideally, many players left the fund untouched as they run to this forum when they stumbled upon situation. I think we can pride ourselves enough that we're still relevant in cryptoworld and stand out amongst crypto-forums, from our SA board [of which, one of the reason why I do what I do voluntarily: to keep this forum as a hub for casinos and players]. But that was me speaking ideally and I am not gonna do assigning-blame here, as I completely understand that our forum is also not that well known that everybody head here the instance they encountered issues.
Thus,
realistically, I've noted the amount due is around 527 USD. If you can give me permission to get my contact to look into your data and give me the exact number, that'll be nice start. Then we can probably go from that point into desirable resolution, especially as the current hush-hush is that there is a major breakthrough in BetPanda that'll make... my head throbbing less.
[Raising one of my eyebrow]
Rating Place, want to comment further? Or your AI... uhh, I mean Assistant Individualé [not sure it's even a real word] need to rebroaden her database?
Part FiveWhat value betting actually is, and why this matters:
Value betting is simply being a good sports bettor.
If you place a bet at 2.45 and the next day the line moves to 2.25, you captured Closing Line Value. That is what a value bettor does. The industry-standard response should be simple: pay the player in full, then limit or restrict the account if the sportsbook no longer wants the action.
Odds providers like Betby or Kambi can flag behavior and provide profiling or advisory data. But that does not turn the provider into the final decision-maker in the customer relationship. The sportsbook is the one taking the bet, holding the balance, applying the terms, and deciding whether to honor or void the wager.
By siding with books that confiscate winnings from value bettors and then praising deposit-only returns as “good will,” holydarkness creates a terrible incentive. Sportsbooks learn that they can keep the player’s rightful winnings, return only the deposit, get called generous for doing so, and then have the case treated as resolved.
Irrelevant to me. Be that as it may, value betting is a smart strategy or a frowned-upon strategy that's categorized as prohibited technique in casino's ToS, my MO to every single cases are the same: inquire to my contact, ask for proof, see if we can find a way to get to the bottom of it with every side happy, and if we can't, why? Press further, and if a wall being hit, then my hands are tied.
A good thing that you mentioned BetPanda, because my contact there, though unfortunately is not someone in higher chair like my batallion on BC, they pressed on each and every players' cases that I brought to them, to every single meeting they had. And I know this because I heard from another contact that reached me to tell me that the person gave so much in every meeting and asked me to not being so hard with them because they can only do so much.
Rating Place, tell us this, who in this entire forum has power to dictate casino on what to do when a value betting being mentioned by the provider? Me? Because I born with six-eyes infinity mugen tsukiyomi five-leaved clover book?
Part Six
So the negative trust is based on a factual disagreement where holydarkness believes the sportsbook is essentially the middleman and the provider is the decisive force in these disputes. That disagreement has been turned into an attack on my honesty, when it is really just that — a disagreement.
If holydarkness wanted to say, “I disagree with Ratings Place on how provider involvement works,” that would be fair. But saying I butcher words and spin narratives is not fair, especially when the public record shows he really did rely on casino representatives to support a provider-first view, really did describe sportsbooks as a kind of middleman in provider-driven disputes, and really did defend deposit-only outcomes as if they were meaningful resolutions. ()
Nope, the negative is placed there to protect the forum from your manipulative trait to twist words and butchering posts to fit your narrative, as abundantly proven above.
Don't need tl;dr for this, it's a statement.
Part Bonus
Oh, by the way, while we're at it, and since you're shining spotlight to your gaslight, mind to enlighten us, the community, of your intent on this advise?
[...]
Edit - For the two players, if you get limited at one Betby book, you can still play at another and bet whatever the second book allows. It’s not your responsibility to check provider. They won’t know that you are the same player if you change device, IP and wallet.
I asked you before and IIRC you have never explained yourself, so here's your chance, under the spotlight. You gave an advise how to trick books that limit players, what do you propose when said player come to the forum and complained about how they got limited by casino or sportsbook because the provider cross-match their ID? As an owner of a page about casinos rating, that you claimed you've helped solved way more than me [not that I care], that the thread is about how casinos in this forum act fairly and not and their record, you instruct people to cheat the casinos?
Rating Place and his thread of #1 Ratings of Bitcoin Sportsbook, you can't be seriously suggesting players to cheat on casinos of which one of your parameter in rating them is their probem-solving capability and fairness? What is fair when the player themselves cheated the limit, cortesy to your tips?
Also,
holy obviously gets paid by BetPanda or he wouldn't have switched signature campaigns. It would make no sense to switch campaigns especially with all the complaints against BetPanda at the time. I also agree with what you said about Ahoy. Other than his Nitrogen posts, he's been spot on everything. He's one of the best here.
Betpanda's rating. You aren't going to find many lower.
AskGamblers 3.4/10
CainoGuru 5.4/10
I actually put you on ignore, and though you're seemingly trying to tiptoeing so best to not attract my attention by keep abbreviating my name instead of mentioning me in full, it doesn't keep me from being notified and had to read the post through TG quick-view when the quoted post has my name mentioned in full.
So, let's put your money where your mouth are?
Here's a binding written contract for you: escrow 5 ETH to whoever escrower you prefer, I'll do the same upon receipt of successful depo, then feel free to rake through my address and prove that I am paid by BetPanda to do their biddings [of course we're talking "paid" in form other than the weekly signature campaign? Because if we aren't, that'll just show public the digits of your IQ]. If you find it, present it to public, and DTs can tag and remove me from the list. If not, your 5 ETH is mine.
Until you're man enough to say yes to that offer of written contract, and prove that you're not just all talk but empty inside just to look important, please don't bother people who really try to address and solve matters.
[...]
You're insane. Do a search and see how many times that I've used "holy". You are paid by BetPanda. It doesn't matter how. I've turned some campaigns down. I was a little surprised in that some do pay nicely for just posting.
edit- If players are beating BetPanda and a player asks for a $20,000 withdraw, what happens?
1. Betby pays $20,000 to BetPanda and then BetPanda pays the player $20,000 as you keep saying. or
2. Betpanda pays the player $20,000.
Now that you've escalate this far, claimed that you have an assistant that can dig my 1.5 years of record in less than an hour [of which, I'll say should be a very expensive PA, as they must have be very skilled, to read all my posts for one and a half years, proof-reading it, fact-checking it, and then submitting the report back to you in less than an hour, certainly you can spare 5 ETH to save your dignity?
I'll send the forum the exact screenshot of my conversation with my contact on BetPanda where they literally laughed out loud when I brushed this as the idea is so random to them. Everybody that knows me well enough, knows I am doing this for the good of the forum and people around me. But if you insist that I'm "paid by BetPanda. It doesn't matter how," I welcome you to depo that 5 ETH, I'll grab it as simple as that 1,560,000 USD. Why? Because I do everything here by rules, with no agenda, other than helping others and preserve the forum and maintain its significance as a hub for crypto enthusiast.
Rating Place, by all means, accept the challenge, escrow those funds, prove you're a man of your words that never twist words for your agenda, or just admit that you're trying all you can do to make yourself look significant; including spinning facts, as abundantly shown above. Or, you can crawl back to the hole you're from, as you're... this is where I'll leave the word hanging and let the overseers finish the sentence.
