Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem

[Rating Place]

Here's a case that would normally get heated. I would fight for the player since there's obviously no foul play and holy would fight for the book saying the provider made the call. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579850.0

holy quote

Though, IIRC, if casino inquire the case and the case is recent, thus the data is still on betby's system, they can pull more info. I'll nudge someone from DuckDice to either appear here or to try inquire more details to Betby.

Book and provider don't talk on something like this. I don't even know what to say on the data on betby's system comment.

As a community if we flag these books for providers call with no proof, the books will stop this type of action.

[T1HGO]

Here's a case that would normally get heated. I would fight for the player since there's obviously no foul play and holy would fight for the book saying the provider made the call. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579850.0

holy quote

Though, IIRC, if casino inquire the case and the case is recent, thus the data is still on betby's system, they can pull more info. I'll nudge someone from DuckDice to either appear here or to try inquire more details to Betby.

Book and provider don't talk on something like this. I don't even know what to say on the data on betby's system comment.

As a community if we flag these books for providers call with no proof, the books will stop this type of action.

I don't think you gave the best example here. You should present cases where it actually happened and not "woulds". I don't think holydarkness defended the casino in this instance, in the only comment he made. Whether he was right or not about the technicality, i have no idea.

But i do agree with you on the last part. We as a community should not condone these types of predatory tactics from casinos.

[Rating Place]

Here's a case that would normally get heated. I would fight for the player since there's obviously no foul play and holy would fight for the book saying the provider made the call. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579850.0

holy quote

Though, IIRC, if casino inquire the case and the case is recent, thus the data is still on betby's system, they can pull more info. I'll nudge someone from DuckDice to either appear here or to try inquire more details to Betby.

Book and provider don't talk on something like this. I don't even know what to say on the data on betby's system comment.

As a community if we flag these books for providers call with no proof, the books will stop this type of action.

I don't think you gave the best example here. You should present cases where it actually happened and not "woulds". I don't think holydarkness defended the casino in this instance, in the only comment he made. Whether he was right or not about the technicality, i have no idea.

But i do agree with you on the last part. We as a community should not condone these types of predatory tactics from casinos.

I'd rather have this come to an end. Your suggestion was the best. Take the trust down and lock the thread.

The BetPanda one was strange. BetPanda was in full blown scam mode, now there's a flag. Holy switched his signature campaign to BetPanda and was protecting BetPanda.

Ruling for XYes and having the community pressure force XYes to pay.

For some reason wanting eyes only viewing with BetPanda when we finally got BetPanda to open the account so we could see the bets. The last time a case was for eyes only viewing is the XYes case where he ruled for XYes.

Taking money knowing that BetPanda was a scam book totally changed my opinion on holy's motives. There's no other way to take it.

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

[T1HGO]

Here's a case that would normally get heated. I would fight for the player since there's obviously no foul play and holy would fight for the book saying the provider made the call. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579850.0

holy quote

Though, IIRC, if casino inquire the case and the case is recent, thus the data is still on betby's system, they can pull more info. I'll nudge someone from DuckDice to either appear here or to try inquire more details to Betby.

Book and provider don't talk on something like this. I don't even know what to say on the data on betby's system comment.

As a community if we flag these books for providers call with no proof, the books will stop this type of action.

I don't think you gave the best example here. You should present cases where it actually happened and not "woulds". I don't think holydarkness defended the casino in this instance, in the only comment he made. Whether he was right or not about the technicality, i have no idea.

But i do agree with you on the last part. We as a community should not condone these types of predatory tactics from casinos.

I'd rather have this come to an end. Your suggestion was the best. Take the trust down and lock the thread.

The BetPanda one was strange. BetPanda was in full blown scam mode, now there's a flag. Holy switched his signature campaign to BetPanda and was protecting BetPanda.

Ruling for XYes and having the community pressure force XYes to pay.

For some reason wanting eyes only viewing with BetPanda when we finally got BetPanda to open the account so we could see the bets. The last time a case was for eyes only viewing is the XYes case where he ruled for XYes.

Taking money knowing that BetPanda was a scam book totally changed my opinion on holy's motives. There's no other way to take it.

Rating, i did suggest that, and i stand by it, as said in my first post here, that even with your differences, you both have the same goal. But you can't say you want this to be over, and in the same post, you escalte things further. Either you want a peacefull resolution or keep brawling. Pick one.

Betpanda is indeed in a scamming spree, we agree on that. And i created the flag, and i am very grateful for the support it has. However saying holydarkness is protecting betpanda is a bit of a stretch here. If anyone bothered to read my first walloftext post, i admited that seeing holydarkness advertising betpanda bothered me. I'm not gonna lie about it. Did he give opinions on my case that i think are ridiculous? Yes. I even pointed them out in my initial post. But is giving factually wrong opinions, protecting? I thought so too, but now i am not so sure. It shows bias? I guess so. But protecting, would be not only opposing the flag, but also fighting on their behalf. And at least, so far, up until now, as far as i'm aware, he has not done that. Now, i will admit that his opinions do have weight, and will influence many overseers. But like i asked on a previous post, what has more weight? One man's opinion(be it right or wrong) or the community's veredict through the flagging system?
Betpanda has been flagged. Now it's up to them if they want change that or not. And as long as he doesn't oppose the flag, i will not consider him to be defending betpanda.

Your final point was taking money from betpanda, i assume you're talking about the signature campaing here.
I'm not gonna repeat myself for the third time on what i thought about it. But honestly it's none of my business or anyone's what he gets from it. I think it's a matter of perspective here. My perspective is well known already, I was scammed. In his perspective, i assume perhaps, given what he has said publically, his contact or friend or whatever the relation they have, is that he was extremely cooperative and nice to work with. In my opinion that may have clouded his judgement and gave him a false of integrity for betpanda that was just smoke. I think it's pretty clear to everyone now, betpanda is predatory. Now, IF! for some reason, betpanda's signature campaing came back, and holydarkness decided to advertise them, would i consider it "defending" betpanda? Probably not. But i would be extremely disappointed in his judgement.


Now i will suggest again: Guys please, take a deep breath. Especially you rating, you have been on a post spree, and this cannot be healthy. Stress is a silent killer. This does not benefit anyone, it only harms the forum. You both want to help people. De-escalate things, find a middleground and resolve your issues.

I think biggest prolems between you too, is miscommunications and misunderstandings. I don't know where you guys are from, but in my case, english is not my native language. I know there are alot of typos, and i sometimes forget to type words, that are on my head, and i just forget to type them. I can't help it. It doesn't happen on my native language.


Sorry for double posting, but there's so many comments, i can't read them all at once.

Holy, that post is so long it’s going to take a while to digest and reply. So that we are talking the same thing and there’s no miscommunication please give me your meaning of

1. Arbitrage Bet
2. Value Bet
3. If a player is flagged for one of those is he guilty or just informational for a sportsbook to do their own investigation and proceed appropriately?
4. How do providers come to their conclusion if a player is guilty of any violation and do we assume it’s true.



Edit - reading through a bit I’ll answer the Flag question since your arguments are based on that. Flags are just profiling tools. Most of us are profiled recreational. When a person is profiled a value bettor, he’s auto limited.

If a person is profiled arbitrage normally this player is just auto-limited. The book also receives the message that this is a possible arbitrage player. There is no proof of guilt. It’s impossible to prove without betting slips from two different books using different providers. It’s given to the sportsbook as a warning.

I would also like, personally, to see those questions answered, but the questions were already made so, i'm gonna say anything else.

There is one thing about arbitrage i would like to say, Rating. I agree with almost everything you say about arbitrage, but i think there is one flaw in your logic. You assume every player is experienced. I said in a previous post, arbitrage, would be impossible to prove, unless the player is a donkey. But they do exist. Especially inexperienced bettors, who have no clue. I will make a confession. I have done arbitrage only once in my life. Back in old nitrogensports, many years ago. In my first week or 2 weeks of gambling. Why? Because i had no idea it was against the rules. I lost confidence on a bet i made, and wanted to take it back. The goal wasn't to take advatage or profit, it was just fear of losing money. Losing 20 bucks back then was terrifying. I had no experience or knowledge. And those players are more common than we think. I am sure there are many inexperienced and clueless players, complaining in scam accusation threads.

[Rating Place]

Sorry for double posting, but there's so many comments, i can't read them all at once.

Holy, that post is so long it’s going to take a while to digest and reply. So that we are talking the same thing and there’s no miscommunication please give me your meaning of

1. Arbitrage Bet
2. Value Bet
3. If a player is flagged for one of those is he guilty or just informational for a sportsbook to do their own investigation and proceed appropriately?
4. How do providers come to their conclusion if a player is guilty of any violation and do we assume it’s true.



Edit - reading through a bit I’ll answer the Flag question since your arguments are based on that. Flags are just profiling tools. Most of us are profiled recreational. When a person is profiled a value bettor, he’s auto limited.

If a person is profiled arbitrage normally this player is just auto-limited. The book also receives the message that this is a possible arbitrage player. There is no proof of guilt. It’s impossible to prove without betting slips from two different books using different providers. It’s given to the sportsbook as a warning.

I would also like, personally, to see those questions answered, but the questions were already made so, i'm gonna say anything else.

There is one thing about arbitrage i would like to say, Rating. I agree with almost everything you say about arbitrage, but i think there is one flaw in your logic. You assume every player is experienced. I said in a previous post, arbitrage, would be impossible to prove, unless the player is a donkey. But they do exist. Especially inexperienced bettors, who have no clue. I will make a confession. I have done arbitrage only once in my life. Back in old nitrogensports, many years ago. In my first week or 2 weeks of gambling. Why? Because i had no idea it was against the rules. I lost confidence on a bet i made, and wanted to take it back. The goal wasn't to take advatage or profit, it was just fear of losing money. Losing 20 bucks back then was terrifying. I had no experience or knowledge. And those players are more common than we think. I am sure there are many inexperienced and clueless players, complaining in scam accusation threads.

You’re right that arbitrage can’t proved which is hilarious since holy thinks someone is guilty of arbitrage with proof of a flag and he’s adamant about it. Giving someone negative trust for twisting words is the most juvenile thing that I’ve ever seen in my life.

He doesn’t even have one example in the whole novel that he wrote. He outright lied about his main point of the flag. That was I accused him of the 70 book Betby. I never accused him of it. Then I clarified it over and over so that there could be no mistake. That’s not escalation, it’s rebutting his supposed proof.

Now I’ve asked to show proof of one thing where negative trust is warranted. We would all read something that short. He doesn’t have one thing that’s true.

[holydarkness]

I've read through holydarkness's OMEGAPOST and here are my 2 cents on it(not that anyone will care xd)

It seems those xyes threads was when and where this "friction" started. I completely missed this thread, and wasn't aware of any of this. Now i understand the escrow 5ETH reference that you included me in a few weeks ago lol. I will acknowledge(from what i've read) that Rating Place might have exceeded himself, and been overly agressive at times. I understand that using words like "liar" is almost an equivalent to a slur, for someone who prides himself for his integrity. I think most of the points are fair. I won't argue against facts.

I think however, one of holydarkness's points is extremely unfair.

Quote from: Rating Place on June 25, 2025, 09:01:50 AM
[...]
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?

In no way, shape or form, what was quoted from Rating place, is cheating or tricks. We are not talking about multi-accounting here. We are talking about different casinos with the same provider. If i get limited at 500, i am allowed to create an account at rollbit, just to give an example. I don't know why he mentioned different IP, wallets and all that, but even if he mentions that, it just turns something legal, into something legal, but weird.
Having one account for a different casino, under the same provider is OKAY, and i have not seen anything against it in any TOS, as long as it's not multi-accounting in the same casino. Which i'm pretty sure it's what rating place said in that quote.

Limits by provider follows you across casinos. Player can play [let's say] BC and BetPanda and 500 and other Betby-provided games and got limited on 500 due to arbitrage or other abusive behavior, the provider will record their own detection algorithm and eventually catch up that username [let's say] T2HGO on BC and T3HGO on BetPanda is the same player as MYNAMENOTTHIGO on 500.

That's why Rating Place suggested people to bypass the detection and ultimately encourage them to continue on with their detrimental betting activities on other platform.

While on this subject, i would to ask something else.


This is from your thread, and in this is partictular case, you chose, comment #13 as the "conclusion" comment to the case. I will not argue if the player is right or wrong, even tho he admitted to arbitrage. I just would like to know if the conclusion comment chosen was a mistake, or you felt like it didn't matter, since you could have chosen another comment to use as conclusion. Or did you really feel this was the best comment to conclude this case?
Comment in question here just to save the trouble to look it up:


The comment is very similar to what rating place said in the quote you are picking on. Do you truly believe this is cheating?

A nice example of what I just conveyed above. Providers' mark followed you across casinos. That player's admittance that he hopping-casinos and Betby finally caught them with the arbit, isn't that fairly conclusive enough?

There is one more thing i would like to adress:

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.

I know you said it's irrelevant to you. And your main purpose is to work as a bridge between the player and casino. But i think it's fair to say, that you give your personal opinions in most cases, and not just act as a bridge. So, if you don't mind me asking, what is your stance and views, and what is, for you, the definition of "value betting"?

I have seen many times, when the discussion is about "suspicious betting activity", from alot of people(you included), that arbitrage and value betting go hand in hand (arb/value). I will say, in most cases, i will support casinos side, if arbitrage is proven(even tho it's something almost impossible to prove, unless the player is an absolute donkey). Value betting is whole different story. Value betting should be renamed to Skill-based prediction. It's a predatory excuse to confiscate winning players's funds.

Completely depend on what the casino's ToS said. If the casino only said "Arbing" is not allowed, then if they ban players for value betting or other betting method, the casino should explain their position.

If the ToS said [we'll go straight to the point here as I am sure you're aiming to discuss BetPanda's policy] "In the interests of fair play, it is not permitted to utilise or deploy any novel or recognised betting techniques while using our services which are designed to circumvent the standard house edge in our casino games nor the sportsbook", where the "novel or recognized betting techniques designed to circumvent standard HE" here, sadly, according to chatGPT [I asked months ago and reasked today just to be sure my glasses is not making me myopic] can cover value bet as the strategy circumvent casino's standard HE, then should we discuss whether or not the player violated ToS they agreed?

No one is going to read the whole post by holy so I'll sum it up.

[...]

Yawn. Just stop hiding in smoke and mirrors and answer each questions I nicely summarize at the bottom of each part, that become the summary of each points? Afraid that answering them will show your true color?

[...]
He doesn’t even have one example in the whole novel that he wrote. He outright lied about his main point of the flag. That was I accused him of the 70 book Betby. I never accused him of it. Then I clarified it over and over so that there could be no mistake. That’s not escalation, it’s rebutting his supposed proof.

Now I’ve asked to show proof of one thing where negative trust is warranted. We would all read something that short. He doesn’t have one thing that’s true.

You do love to humiliate yourself, huh? A clear example even explicitly shown on point 3,

[...] 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.”

When the sportsbook finally returns the deposit only, he frames it as a generous “gesture of good will” or “gesture of goodwill” instead of what it really is: the bare minimum. In the XYes thread, public search indexing preserves this exact formulation: “They are now paying as a gesture of goodwill and nothing else.” ()

Quote me that exact post I made on 27th June 2025, if I may ask very politely. Because, both my original post history and archived history [screenshotted for audience to see] shows that I only made three posts on 27th June 2025, and none said like what you said I wrote.

Is my feedback still incorrect, then? That you twist words and statements?

[Rating Place]

holy is showing his lack of sportsbook knowledge. Betby software is highly customizable. The dollar amount doesn't follow you around from Betby book to Betby book, only the flag (profile). A player may be limited to $10 at one Betby book, $100 at another and not limited at another. The sportsbook is the boss, not the provider.

I don't twist anything. If I make a mistake then I'll correct it when pointed out. No time to check now.

Outright liar. Took money from scam sportsbook Betpanda via signature campaign knowing that Betpanda wastake a scam sportsbook with many scam accusations at the time. Now there's even a flag on Betpanda. Is ruling that sportsbooks have the right to steal our winnings for value betting (good bets). Has even stated in one case that Rollbit was within their rights for for taking deposits and winnings for smart betting. Justifies sportsbooks stealing money by wrongly saying sportsbooks are just middlemen. The Provider is the one taking the money.

[T1HGO]

Limits by provider follows you across casinos. Player can play [let's say] BC and BetPanda and 500 and other Betby-provided games and got limited on 500 due to arbitrage or other abusive behavior, the provider will record their own detection algorithm and eventually catch up that username [let's say] T2HGO on BC and T3HGO on BetPanda is the same player as MYNAMENOTTHIGO on 500.

That's why Rating Place suggested people to bypass the detection and ultimately encourage them to continue on with their detrimental betting activities on other platform.

Okay, it's true that betby limitations can follow you across casinos. I am aware of that. And you know it because it happened to me. I must say, that after that, i've used 3 betby books, still intact limits to this day (please spare me mister spy And i'm okay with that. You named "arbitrage or other abusive behavior" as possible reasons for limitations, but i can assure you, those are not the only reasons betby will limit a player. Imposed limits is also a defense mechanism against winning players. And i understand that and am totally fine with it. It's not sustainable for a casino to allow players to keep winning over a long period of time. This happens literally in every provider, book whatever you wanna call it, not exclusive to betby. I pride myself of being a fair player, never broke any tos rule, and i am willing to put my microscopic reputation on the line for it.

But this brings us to another related subject, which is, players having fairly won funds, confiscated over misinterpreted limitation flags. Do you think it's acceptable for a player to have his winnings confiscated, when betby flags a player for "value-betting" which results in immediate limitation, but the casino confiscates winnings at cashouts, based on that? Because the definition for me of value-betting, is simply, be smart. I shouldn't need to turn off my brain to place bets. If i beat the house fairly i should be able to cashout. Limitation is one thing, winnings confiscation is another.

When i register at a casino, i am not signing a contract/accepting TOS with betby, i am accepting the casino's terms. Whatever i do at other casinos, should not matter in the one i'm playing currently. If i break tos, in one casino, i should not be punished at another casino, where i did not break tos, even if the provider is the same. This is just an example in case anyone wants to twist words here.

[Rating Place]

Limits by provider follows you across casinos. Player can play [let's say] BC and BetPanda and 500 and other Betby-provided games and got limited on 500 due to arbitrage or other abusive behavior, the provider will record their own detection algorithm and eventually catch up that username [let's say] T2HGO on BC and T3HGO on BetPanda is the same player as MYNAMENOTTHIGO on 500.

That's why Rating Place suggested people to bypass the detection and ultimately encourage them to continue on with their detrimental betting activities on other platform.

Okay, it's true that betby limitations can follow you across casinos. I am aware of that. And you know it because it happened to me. I must say, that after that, i've used 3 betby books, still intact limits to this day (please spare me mister spy And i'm okay with that. You named "arbitrage or other abusive behavior" as possible reasons for limitations, but i can assure you, those are not the only reasons betby will limit a player. Imposed limits is also a defense mechanism against winning players. And i understand that and am totally fine with it. It's not sustainable for a casino to allow players to keep winning over a long period of time. This happens literally in every provider, book whatever you wanna call it, not exclusive to betby. I pride myself of being a fair player, never broke any tos rule, and i am willing to put my microscopic reputation on the line for it.

But this brings us to another related subject, which is, players having fairly won funds, confiscated over misinterpreted limitation flags. Do you think it's acceptable for a player to have his winnings confiscated, when betby flags a player for "value-betting" which results in immediate limitation, but the casino confiscates winnings at cashouts, based on that? Because the definition for me of value-betting, is simply, be smart. I shouldn't need to turn off my brain to place bets. If i beat the house fairly i should be able to cashout. Limitation is one thing, winnings confiscation is another.

When i register at a casino, i am not signing a contract/accepting TOS with betby, i am accepting the casino's terms. Whatever i do at other casinos, should not matter in the one i'm playing currently. If i break tos, in one casino, i should not be punished at another casino, where i did not break tos, even if the provider is the same. This is just an example in case anyone wants to twist words here.

holy's wrong on dollar amounts following you around. The profile follows you around. That's why holy is confused on flags. He thinks it's guilt when it's just a profile and it doesn't have to be true. Any time a sportsbook blames the provider and your money is confiscated, there is no proof, only a flag created by AI. Of course there can be an internal investigation to get proof which is what the good sportsbooks are doing.

[holydarkness]

holy is showing his lack of sportsbook knowledge. Betby software is highly customizable. The dollar amount doesn't follow you around from Betby book to Betby book, only the flag (profile). A player may be limited to $10 at one Betby book, $100 at another and not limited at another. The sportsbook is the boss, not the provider.

I don't twist anything. If I make a mistake then I'll correct it when pointed out. No time to check now.

Outright liar. Took money from scam sportsbook Betpanda via signature campaign knowing that Betpanda wastake a scam sportsbook with many scam accusations at the time. Now there's even a flag on Betpanda. Is ruling that sportsbooks have the right to steal our winnings for value betting (good bets). Has even stated in one case that Rollbit was within their rights for for taking deposits and winnings for smart betting. Justifies sportsbooks stealing money by wrongly saying sportsbooks are just middlemen. The Provider is the one taking the money.

holydarkness

2026-04-12

Outright liar. Took money from scam sportsbook Betpanda via signature campaign knowing that Betpanda was a scam sportsbook with many scam accusations at the time. Now there's even a flag on Betpanda. Is ruling that sportsbooks have the right to steal our winnings for value betting (good bets). Has even stated in one case that Rollbit was within their rights for for taking deposits and winnings for smart betting. Justifies sportsbooks stealing money by wrongly saying sportsbooks are just middlemen. The Provider is the one taking the money.

Neeett...nooootttt... wrong feedback description. By that statement, all the players that was with BetPanda, be it from the start, joining in the middle, leaving in the middle, or staying until it ended, should be tagged. Plus, the 5 ETH contract I offered you [that you're not man enough to take because you know your words are empty air] clearly stated that we're talking about earning from sources other than sig.

Actually... cross that.

By your feedback, every members who wear casino sig should be tagged by you because at one point or two, casinos have dispute and these members "took money" from those sportsbooks.

You do aware that multiple failure in showing capability to place correct feedback will make you being distrusted by DTs, right? You're going further down the rabbit hole, Baby. Please, safe your dignity and just try to answer those points I raised as rebuttal to your thread against me.

Because that's how this thing work, if I am not mistaken: you accuse something that made people should question my reputation, and I defend myself with either explanation or rebuttal. Of which, I do both: explanation and rebuttal, of your own opening post, dissected in microscopic details.


T1HGO, since I believe you have your own agenda here: to discuss your own case against BetPanda, do you mind to move our discussion to your own thread, so Rating Place can focus on the matter at hand and address my rebuttal to him, without any distraction that he can use as his excuse? This thread titled "Negative trust from holydarkness", talking about betpanda, betby, value bet, and the likes, will rather be OOT.

[Rating Place]

I was describing how you were getting paid by Betpanda so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. I don't care what other people do or how they make money and never call them out on it. You are the only person that I've ever given negative trust in 12 years , should say that's still up since there was one other taken down, or called out because you are lying with negative trust. Every word that I said is 100% true and I'll get all they evidence a DT member needs.

[yahoo62278]

I was describing how you were getting paid by Betpanda so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. I don't care what other people do or how they make money and never call them out. You are the only person that I've ever given negative trust or called out because you are lying with negative trust. Every word that I said is 100% true and I'll get all they evidence a DT member needs.

You have proof he was being paid by Betpanda or are you referring to a sig campaign payment?

I think at this point you 2 are just writing walls of text that absolutely noone except you 2 are going to read. Might be better to take this to your pms.

[Rating Place]

I was describing how you were getting paid by Betpanda so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. I don't care what other people do or how they make money and never call them out. You are the only person that I've ever given negative trust or called out because you are lying with negative trust. Every word that I said is 100% true and I'll get all they evidence a DT member needs.

You have proof he was being paid by Betpanda or are you referring to a sig campaign payment?

I think at this point you 2 are just writing walls of text that absolutely noone except you 2 are going to read. Might be better to take this to your pms.

sig campaign. That's why I added that it the trust. To make sure there isn't a misunderstanding.

Took money from scam sportsbook Betpanda via signature campaign

[holydarkness]

I was describing how you were getting paid by Betpanda so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. I don't care what other people do or how they make money and never call them out. You are the only person that I've ever given negative trust or called out because you are lying with negative trust. Every word that I said is 100% true and I'll get all they evidence a DT member needs.

You have proof he was being paid by Betpanda or are you referring to a sig campaign payment?

I think at this point you 2 are just writing walls of text that absolutely noone except you 2 are going to read. Might be better to take this to your pms.

He wrote a repu thread about me as retaliation of me outing his tendency to twist words. Not just on my posts and statements, other forum member's posts as well. He wrote a wall of text as his opening post as the basis of the thread, I replied in abundance, complete with concrete evidence of how my tag is [IMO] justified, that he's caught red-handed twisting words and I warned the community to take his statement with grains of salt, I gave him an easy way to make his own rebuttal by highlighting the summary of each my abundant explanation in six [plus two bonus] points. He's too afraid to address them because it'll end this thread with affirmation that he's indeed twisting words.

So, there goes his wall of text and tail-chasing.

At this point, I don't think we need to move this to PMs, yet, as Rating Place can easily end this thread by addressing my questions. Six [plus two] points. No wall of text, mere eight paragraphs explaining his stance, and that's all. Not that I am not agree with you to move to PM where it won't torture people with wall of text. Rather, if discussion moved to PM, protected under the private nature of it, Rating Place's detrimental trait that backfired into him when he raise this thread, will forever remains under secrecy of PM instead of being known to public.

That said, and to take your input very thoroughly, I think the best approach is to address Rating Place with simple sentence, where we shall assume the tag is correct and the negative trust from me is justified, until he can muster enough courage to address my rebuttal.

[Rating Place]

I was describing how you were getting paid by Betpanda so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding. I don't care what other people do or how they make money and never call them out. You are the only person that I've ever given negative trust or called out because you are lying with negative trust. Every word that I said is 100% true and I'll get all they evidence a DT member needs.

You have proof he was being paid by Betpanda or are you referring to a sig campaign payment?

I think at this point you 2 are just writing walls of text that absolutely noone except you 2 are going to read. Might be better to take this to your pms.

He wrote a repu thread about me as retaliation of me outing his tendency to twist words. Not just on my posts and statements, other forum member's posts as well. He wrote a wall of text as his opening post as the basis of the thread, I replied in abundance, complete with concrete evidence of how my tag is [IMO] justified, that he's caught red-handed twisting words and I warned the community to take his statement with grains of salt, I gave him an easy way to make his own rebuttal by highlighting the summary of each my abundant explanation in six [plus two bonus] points. He's too afraid to address them because it'll end this thread with affirmation that he's indeed twisting words.

So, there goes his wall of text and tail-chasing.

At this point, I don't think we need to move this to PMs, yet, as Rating Place can easily end this thread by addressing my questions. Six [plus two] points. No wall of text, mere eight paragraphs explaining his stance, and that's all. Not that I am not agree with you to move to PM where it won't torture people with wall of text. Rather, if discussion moved to PM, protected under the private nature of it, Rating Place's detrimental trait that backfired into him when he raise this thread, will forever remains under secrecy of PM instead of being known to public.

That said, and to take your input very thoroughly, I think the best approach is to address Rating Place with simple sentence, where we shall assume the tag is correct and the negative trust from me is justified, until he can muster enough courage to address my rebuttal.

The only thing that matters is everything I posted in the trust is true. You are a complete liar falsely accusing me of things and looking for gotcha moments. Because you have minimal gambling knowledge, the sports books are playing you and you've become their mouth piece. You may be doing a great job with casino players but not sports players, you are hurting them.

People are losing their winnings because you are enabling the sportsbooks saying that flags are guilt and winnings can be taken away.

What did I say in the trust that isn't true?

[T1HGO]

T1HGO, since I believe you have your own agenda here: to discuss your own case against BetPanda, do you mind to move our discussion to your own thread, so Rating Place can focus on the matter at hand and address my rebuttal to him, without any distraction that he can use as his excuse? This thread titled "Negative trust from holydarkness", talking about betpanda, betby, value bet, and the likes, will rather be OOT.

You misunderstood my intentions. I have no agenda here. I was just genuinely asking what is your stance on those matters, with no second intentions. My case against betpanda is already discussed enough in it's own thread, and well documented and detailed. My only intention was know exactly where you stand. However, i do agree with you it is OOT, and having already shared my perspective and opinion, and asked my questions, i feel like i've said everything i wanted and needed to say here.

With that, i am withdrawing from participating in this thread. Unless i am asked to, this is my last comment here.
I hope you both can come to a truce.

[holydarkness]

The only thing that matters is everything I posted in the trust is true. You are a complete liar falsely accusing me of things and looking for gotcha moments. Because you have minimal gambling knowledge, the sports books are playing you and you've become their mouth piece. You may be doing a great job with casino players but not sports players, you are hurting them.

People are losing their winnings because you are enabling the sportsbooks saying that flags are guilt and winnings can be taken away.

What did I say in the trust that isn't true?

Yawn. Learn to read.

[Rating Place]

T1HGO, since I believe you have your own agenda here: to discuss your own case against BetPanda, do you mind to move our discussion to your own thread, so Rating Place can focus on the matter at hand and address my rebuttal to him, without any distraction that he can use as his excuse? This thread titled "Negative trust from holydarkness", talking about betpanda, betby, value bet, and the likes, will rather be OOT.

You misunderstood my intentions. I have no agenda here. I was just genuinely asking what is your stance on those matters, with no second intentions. My case against betpanda is already discussed enough in it's own thread, and well documented and detailed. My only intention was know exactly where you stand. However, i do agree with you it is OOT, and having already shared my perspective and opinion, and asked my questions, i feel like i've said everything i wanted and needed to say here.

With that, i am withdrawing from participating in this thread. Unless i am asked to, this is my last comment here.
I hope you both can come to a truce.

I left scam accusations. You can see in this thread why holy and I butt heads in scam accusations. He has no idea what he's talking about and is the mouthpiece for the sportsbook. I then took the side of the player. He came back with a ton of misinformation given to him by his reps.

@holy if you see something wrong in the trust, I will edit it. If not, it stands as is.

[holydarkness]

I left scam accusations. You can see in this thread why holy and I butt heads in scam accusations. He has no idea what he's talking about and is the mouthpiece for the sportsbook. I then took the side of the player. He came back with a ton of misinformation given to him by his reps.

@holy if you see something wrong in the trust, I will edit it. If not, it stands as is.

You have seven unanswered questions from my very first post in this thread. Go teach yourself how to read, and then answer, sweet darling.

[Rating Place]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and it's a waste of my time explaining. Unless you find something wrong in the trust that I gave to you or want proof of anything in there, I'm done with you.