Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem

[Rating Place]

Holy admits to his bias and gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda many times

II admit openly that there is a bias in my previous judgment and your question to me made me see in new perspective

This just shows that HD is capable of humility. He is open to entertaining new viewpoints. This is a beneficial quality no matter how you want to frame it.

holy is the reason winnings are being stolen. Don't negotiate, force the book to show proof.

Cmon man, 2 days ago you said you didn't want to "step on holy's toes" and now you are saying this desperate nonsense. If you could do what he's doing, then you would be doing it yourself -- end of story.

I can understand holy's friends not wanting to criticize him and that's fine. For the integrity of the trust system, the negative trust should be taken down.

The negative trust is 100% justified and reinforced by your behavior in this thread.

You poked the bear, poked & poked, and then one day the bear poked back. Then you have the nerve to be indignant about it.

I spent 10 years in one place doing my own thing. I came over to scam accusations because I saw a scam being run on holy and wanted to give the players a voice since holy is the book’s voice to confiscate winnings. Books aren’t the middleman. I don’t want anything to do with guy. He takes down the trust and I go back to my thread.

edit- @Shishir99, If I wanted holy's attention, I'd be in scam accusations . I'm here to defend trust abuse.

[yahoo62278]

Holy admits to his bias and gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda many times

II admit openly that there is a bias in my previous judgment and your question to me made me see in new perspective

This just shows that HD is capable of humility. He is open to entertaining new viewpoints. This is a beneficial quality no matter how you want to frame it.

holy is the reason winnings are being stolen. Don't negotiate, force the book to show proof.

Cmon man, 2 days ago you said you didn't want to "step on holy's toes" and now you are saying this desperate nonsense. If you could do what he's doing, then you would be doing it yourself -- end of story.

I can understand holy's friends not wanting to criticize him and that's fine. For the integrity of the trust system, the negative trust should be taken down.

The negative trust is 100% justified and reinforced by your behavior in this thread.

You poked the bear, poked & poked, and then one day the bear poked back. Then you have the nerve to be indignant about it.

I spent 10 years in one place doing my own thing. I came over to scam accusations because I saw a scam being run on holy and wanted to give the players a voice since holy is the book’s voice to confiscate winnings. Books aren’t the middleman. I don’t want anything to do with guy. He takes down the trust and I go back to my thread.

edit- @Shishir99, If I wanted holy's attention, I'd be in scam accusations . I'm here to defend trust abuse.

If you really wanted someone to consider removing a tag, you should probably stop commenting in this thread and keeping the issue hot. You just push push push and it'll get you nowhere man.

[Rating Place]

Holy admits to his bias and gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda many times

II admit openly that there is a bias in my previous judgment and your question to me made me see in new perspective

This just shows that HD is capable of humility. He is open to entertaining new viewpoints. This is a beneficial quality no matter how you want to frame it.

holy is the reason winnings are being stolen. Don't negotiate, force the book to show proof.

Cmon man, 2 days ago you said you didn't want to "step on holy's toes" and now you are saying this desperate nonsense. If you could do what he's doing, then you would be doing it yourself -- end of story.

I can understand holy's friends not wanting to criticize him and that's fine. For the integrity of the trust system, the negative trust should be taken down.

I respect you and you're probably right that it won't get me anywhere. I'll keep it to this thread.
The negative trust is 100% justified and reinforced by your behavior in this thread.

You poked the bear, poked & poked, and then one day the bear poked back. Then you have the nerve to be indignant about it.

I spent 10 years in one place doing my own thing. I came over to scam accusations because I saw a scam being run on holy and wanted to give the players a voice since holy is the book’s voice to confiscate winnings. Books aren’t the middleman. I don’t want anything to do with guy. He takes down the trust and I go back to my thread.

edit- @Shishir99, If I wanted holy's attention, I'd be in scam accusations . I'm here to defend trust abuse.

If you really wanted someone to consider removing a tag, you should probably stop commenting in this thread and keeping the issue hot. You just push push push and it'll get you nowhere man.

I respect you and you're probably right. I'll keep it to this thread.

edit-


Holy hides the betslips to cover up the BetPanda heist.


Ratings Place quote

We can figure this out on our own if we see the bets.

Ratings Place quote

BetPanda's an awful book. It doesn't seem as though they are going to listen to any of us. This case shouldn't be listed resolved

Ratings Place quote

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

Player quote

Still waiting on BetPanda to send me / publish the bet history to show that none of my bets were irregular and they were comparable with other markets.

Holy wants the betslips kept private for his eyes only

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.

Forum pressure continued and prevailed. BetPanda opened up the players account and he posted the bet slips.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5574049.0


My Eyes Only #2 - XYes edition

OP

just unsubstantiated taking away of winnings, I made 3 bets on sports, all won, I showed them to the community, I saw these quotes in other bookmakers, and you're talking about arbitrage? so how do my bets relate to arbitrage, you're unlikely to prove something that doesn't actually exist. you're just a thief

LoyceV

Since you've mentioned me here: I don't like the banning of arbitrage betting. Even stronger: I think it's BS!....

holy  

Yeah, already on it. I've made contact with staff on XYes ....

Ratings Place quote

Great news! If you have a chance ask them about that fake license......

holy quote

So... I have my talks with their representative that's assigned to me, and we tackled several things. Basically, this thread is divided into two things: OP's main situation of arbing, and a sub-topic of their license, the 2022 GCB thing.

Regarding OP's arbitrage betting activity, I can't say much as I am bound by for-my-eyes-only basis] other than that I've given a glimpse of what led them to struck the gavel and draw a verdict of arbing. Regarding arbing is a smart strategy or prohibited, I won't dive deep into that discussion right now, because specifically for this case, smart or not, they're irrelevant because they're simply prohibited, as per their ToS that I've captured and sitting in my gallery since few days ago:

With above, unfortunately, like it or not, we have to consider OP as breaching the terms he agreed upon sign up. Thus, the casino is within their right to confiscate the rest of the fund.

Now, about license. They told me that it was indeed an outdated one. However, they're in the middle of acquiring a new one from Anjouan. I believe they'll properly update the page with the Anjouan licensing and their seal once achieved.

Ratings Place  

1. It wasn’t an outdated license. It was a fake license.

2. The rules say “guaranteed profit with no risk” How did the OP guarantee profit?

3. Xyes says this is their outdated license OGL/2022/501/017

Format of licenses in 2022
Curacao eGaming — 1668/JAZ
Antillephone — 8048/JAZ
Gaming Curacao — 365/JAZ
e-Management N.V. — 5536/JAZ

4. This isn't kept in secret since the bets are public. You either have the two arbitraged bets or you don't.

holy

And I've told you, twice, one hinted and one explicitly, if you bother to read carefully, I've seen the evidence. The provider mark him. Hence the "looking at other things" of which I shall assume you're referring the instance of me bringing OP's other case. I am calling for a motive, as it might shows pattern, jumping from one small casinos to another and threaten the casino [this one might got threatened too, behind the scene, though I will strike that out from statement].

ziportan  

the thing is , holydarkness is prone to believe anything that the casinos say -although they are OBVIOUS lies- than the players claims which are supported by actual evidences......

Ratings Place quote

holydarkness, he does make a good point. You have to stop believing everything the casino and casino reps tell you. ......

Flexie80  

@holydarkness

If you are so much defending the books for consicating for value betting, do you even realize that 99% of the bets that are being placed are pure value bets for the sportsbook itself?.......

ziportan  to holy

You keep saying that but you are the one that keeps confusing. You keep letting casinos or the casino reps here confuse you all the time. My case also was turned to arb betting by the rep, after he realized that value betting doesn't cause any winnings confiscation by any means.......

Flexie80 to holy

Then how about you hand over the evidence of arbitrage betting to the accuser himself? .....

Flexie80 to holy on why it was impossible for there to be proof

This is not do-able on the same bookmaker (because they have a bookie margin that makes it impossible to arb within the same book) so the 2nd betting slip would have to be from another book (for example Pinnacle) and it would be impossible for you nor XYes to have obtained this.......

holy  

.....Speaking in general, the provider sent their flag to casinos about arbing or other violation the providers detect, and the casinos act accordingly to this flag. The casino does not need two bet slips to compare stakes of the opposite outcome of the same events, the provider did this......

Ratings Place

I don’t know why you continue to make things up. The provider can’t compare. I have no idea why you are doing this to these players.

holy

......Not to mention that it is not too far fetched to think that it is possible that those providers communicate with each others in terms of crosschecking violators. Everyone hates violators. And enemy of my enemy is my friend, so, is it impossible to think Betby say, "hi Pinnacle, I'm sending you user with this details, can you share me his betslips from date x to y? I'll return with the result."?...

Flexie80

Hahaha, you have absolutely no idea how sportsbetting works obviously. Pinnacle is an ARB-FRIENDLY bookmaker so they are never ever gonna share user details. ......

Flexie80

My purpose is not to sling mud at you, my purpose is to teach you a bit of how sportsbetting works. Because from reading your posts I can see you don't know much yet.....

Ratings Place

The one thing that I am confident of is that XYes has no proof. They would have showed it 2 weeks ago to the players and the case would have been settled

Ratings Place

3 bets

$94
$151
$259

No one in their right mind thinks you arbed for these amounts and they can’t figure it out in 3 weeks.

holy

I believe this shall be the closing statement of this case:

After a thorough discussion with the casino, as a gesture of goof will and show that the casino listens to the forum and have the forum's best interest at heart, they are agreed to recredit all of your winnings .........I'd like to stress this once more that this is not because XYes has no proof or arbing or anything else. I can vouch with my reputation here that the account did got flagged for arb betting by the provider. Nonetheless, listening to the input that's given by one or two prominent members advice, they agreed to initiate the gesture as they are planning to start their journey with the forum.

holy to me

................that's later revised and added one more point on #176. So, if you want to address anything and clarify your statements or salvage your face, it's post #176. Otherwise, it doesn't interest me to read and address any further demonstration of your incompetency and impotence.

Ratings Place

the case is over. I’m not replying to your never ending personal attacks.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5545943.0

[Rating Place]

Bruised ego

In the next XYes case XYes contacted me midstream and wanted to discuss the case so we set time and date. I sent holy a heads up that they contacted me and maybe I could help.

Holy goes berserk.

Holy

Wait... umm... I don't think I understand this.

Rating Place, I am asking your permission to share with public what you inform me through PM regarding this case. That's one of the reason why I didn't chase the casino firther [aside from the stance I had as poured in older post, as well as the player himself didn't give their consent to me, so I can't speak on their behalf] and "ignored" OP's consecutive post of being "ignored" by the casino. And then you... not only encouraged a flag, but also going to supporting it?

What happened?

Ratings Place

You can share if you want. I’m not going to say what they told me. Let’s just say we didn’t see eye to eye.

holy

This is the reason why I barely try to bridge this case [again, aside from above mentioned reason] and other XYes related matters. Because Rating Place assured me that he's in contact with XYes.

I have to say that I am very surprised with this turn of event. From "I can help do that case" to "where do I go to support the flag?" and this come from someone who state to me,

And instead of arbitraging between players and the casino, like you said you'll do, you encouraged a flag? Because "we didn't see eye to eye"?

I dont mean to be rude or attacking you, but at the very least, especially as you claimed to have been arbitrating cases longer than me, you'll at least have an uderstanding when you've exhausted a path, you try to exhaust another, intead of suddenly encouraging a flag because "we didn't see eye to eye". Even if that means telling me that it doesn't go well between you and XYes so I can at least take it back.

If you can share what "we didn't see eye to eye" exactly is, that might be a good start to help us understand this sudden mess. Because if I were in that position, I'll exhaust every other possible way, and ask OP to allow me to speak on their behalf and fight for their case with XYes instead of just encourage a flagging.

God of Thunder, can you please give insight on what happened? Were you still in contact with them following my last talk with them [I believe I update you with this] where I withdraw myself as per a situation I understood that there is someone else who will talk with them for their player's behalf?

Ratings Place

You make mountains out of molehills. XYes contacted me, we didn't agree. If a book contacts me, I'll reply. If a player goes to my thread, I'll try to help. I'm not trying to step on toes in scam accusations, so I watch most of the time unless it's obvious. I'm not discussing what people tell me in private and I don't try to play big shot or name drop.

You are always looking for trouble and get all twisted up when I reply. It's more important to you to try and make me look bad then helping players. It's not going to work. Doing double blind studies was your best when all you had to do is ask why they didn't pay.

holy

I what?!

You assured me on other thread that you've done arbitration of cases a lot longer than me. You wrote a PM to me that you can help do the case, of which become the reason I withdraw myself. And now you say, "If a book contacts me, I'll reply. If a player goes to my thread, I'll try to help." and, "I'm not trying to step on toes in scam accusations," as well as you encouraged a flag because you don't see the casino eye to eye? You've being an arbitrator for cases for a lot longer than me and this is how you approach cases?

Excuse me, I don't know what other think, if they're in my shoes, when they got that PM and that assurance, but for me it looks like you messed up. This whole thing can probably be avoided and situation deescalated if you're at least man enough to admit you can't handle things. Instead, you encoraged a flag, when the situation [as well as future cases] can probably be salvaged if you inform me earlier that you're failed, that whole "didn't see eye to eye" thing.

And now you [at least from where I see and read the added paragraph] tried to shift the blame to me. Me? Make it more important to make you look bad than helping players?

Allow me to summon the old unaddressed inquiry because I think you're also not man enough to admit those mistakes, both happens to be XYes' too,

*some images*

And you have the audacity to say [and I quote again], "It's more important to you to try and make me look bad then helping players."? While you twist my words and falsifying my statements, made up a statement I never make for the sole purpose of making me look bad, not to tell the public that I am the one sabotaging a case?

Now, when you're given the spot as you wished and you messed up because you don't see eye-to-eye, it's me make it more important to try and make it looks bad than helping players?

Helping players will be exhausting negotiation and try as relentless as possible to get a middle ground for both side, not encouraging a flag just because you bumped into a small wall. That's what a bridge do.

I am about to remove myself from a case, but that's not without an exhaustive effort of weeks trying to get the casino to meet in the middle, not just dropping after a day or two because you don't meet eye to eye.

And it's me making you look bad?

You look bad, that ship has sailed long ago, when you say you'll take the case and later encouraged a flag.

In a way, yes, it's me "making you look bad", simply because I let the public knows the truth what really happened: that you offered to take a case, then drop it for a simple disagreement [whatever that is], and then have the audacity to encourage a flag. You escalated a case to an epic proportion instead of deescalating things like what a bridge do, and that's me making you look bad?

Ratings Place

holy - these cases are simple and you are still backing the casino saying they did nothing wrong.The reason why people are getting stiffed is because you keep backing XYes. I want to warn people and stop it.

holy

Peeps, I literally withdraw myself from XYes following your PM. And you still accuse me of "you are still backing the casino"? I literally remove myself completely and only return when this shit hits the ceiling.

You want to prove yourself by declaring you've been arbitrating cases a lot longer than me. I choose to give you that and withdraw myself from XYes cases, and next thing I heard is you encouraged this case to raise a flag, asked where can you support the flag, and the casino didn't meet you eye to eye?

What meet eye to eye is this, exactly? Kinda interesting to know, as well as efforts you exhausted to "arbitrating" this case, because it seems, if I may interpret the timeline correctly, you're reaching the casino, in touch with them, talking about something [I don't know how far and about what, since you refuse to talk about it], didn't meet eye to eye, and they withdraw themselves from the forum [they remove their business relation with GoT before this whole flag happen] just like... three days after they're in touch with you. And then you encouraged a flag.

Such a turn of event, no? From being able to help with the case to encouraging a flag. Why is that, if I may ask? Hopefully that's not to discredit them further and preemptively taint their reputation and make anything that come later from them rather dubious, suppose they returned to explain to the public why they withdraw as well as what "didn't meet eye to eye" this is?

Oh, if you want to make a rebuttal by saying all of the above is me attacking you, let me preemptively answer that: it's not. It's asking for clarification of what happened.

You can add that to point 6 with the other 5 that you also refuse to answer. It'll just add... molehill to your credibility.

Ratings Place

Stop worrying about me. I did fiat arbitration for years. It’s why I can read bet slips and tell you how flags work. Just try to help players. I don’t care who gets credit. It’s why I do stuff behind the scenes and don’t consistently brag about having contacts. You still don’t understand that XYes is scamming because you don’t understand it.

Yahoo asks use to leave

@Rating Place and @holydarkness can you guys take your spat to pm. Let's try to stick to the case.

holy doesn't leave and continues.  

And yet they decided to leave the forum after you didn't meet eye to eye with them, and then you encouraged flag. From someone who want to help with the case to jump into flagging... what transpires in those DM? hmm....

Ok, all five of my contact that hapens to be from compliance are wrong. Who's right? You? When one casino evidently even create their own risk assessment team as a rebuttal to the provider's call. And two casinos showed me the entire process of those flaggings. They're fabricated? Because you said so?


Uhh... actually it's not good that people complained, especially not your complaints, as what you wrote on that thread were those misleading and made up narrrative that "holy made up rule" and "that Tos is not from XYes", which you don't dare to clarify or man enough to admit you made a misleading statements and explain why.

It's thanks to one very prominent member of the forum and one casino contact of mine who gave me insight on how to approach and find equilibrium, casino side and forum demand, that I later propose to XYes and they agreed after lengthy explanation.

I've gave my points here and I don't think I'll engage further. Unless Rating Place finally have the courage to address those six points of his attempt to smear my name, that he continue to evade.

And... there is no sticking to the case. That's why I don't mind answering to Peeps and get a bit derailing over the topic. The case meets no end, as well as other case. Might as well show the public what true nature this user have.

XYes cease from engaging to the forum after his three days DM [maybe less] with XYes team, following his PM telling me that he can "help" with the case, that later turned 180 degree to supporting flag.

Sorry dude, your case has meet its end. The casino seems to have removed themselves completely from the forum for "unknown" reason. Ask Rating Place, he's the last one in touch with them and didn't "meet eye to eye".

Ratings Place

Holy- You ruled for the casino. It's a good thing people complained. XYes left the forum and contacted me to take this off forum. You don't understand it because it deals with the profiling software and numbers. Their stance is they aren't paying value players.

Same thing , different day.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5548526.60

[JollyGood]

If both holydarkness and Rating Place have a disagreement over how the tag is interpreted or the grounds for giving the tag in the first place, that will stay as neither is willing to change their position. On that basis, Rating Place should put his energy elsewhere rather than posting about the tag.

I am curious though, he has received a neutral and red tag before the tag holydarkness gave yet he has not complained about them.

I cannot be the only one, going through this thread is difficult for the eyes. The endless long posts and scrolling involved has to be taking a toll on other members too. That has to be the reason why there is very little input here from members.

[Rating Place]

If both holydarkness and Rating Place have a disagreement over how the tag is interpreted or the grounds for giving the tag in the first place, that will stay as neither is willing to change their position. On that basis, Rating Place should put his energy elsewhere rather than posting about the tag.

I am curious though, he has received a neutral and red tag before the tag holydarkness gave yet he has not complained about them.

I cannot be the only one, going through this thread is difficult for the eyes. The endless long posts and scrolling involved has to be taking a toll on other members too. That has to be the reason why there is very little input here from members.

The tags were given by people from Sportsbet. They didn't like the rating given to Sportsbet. notblox stalked me for years. Admittedly, I used the trust system wrong. I gave him negative trust for stalking and later changed it to neutral. He said, "I'm going to teach you a lesson". In 2016 Twitchy tagged me for something that happened in 2014.  He didn't like the 2016 rating.

Honestly, I normally don't care about tags. Someone asked me to fight notblox tag. I said, I don't care. Helping players is important. Holy runs interference for the books and wants to silence me.






Obsessed

I wonder how much time holy did researching to insult me. He lost in the end.

Ratings Place

We can figure this out on our own if we see the bets.

Player

Still waiting on BetPanda to send me / publish the bet history to show that none of my bets were irregular and they were comparable with other markets.

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.

edit- No one posts because they know holy is wrong. They posted when they thought I was wrong.

[JollyGood]

If we put aside the other issues for a moment, it seems your concern (or main concern) relates to the allegation that holydarkness is not being neutral in some or all of his interventions because he is/was participating in certain campaigns. Is that the crux of the argument you are presenting? If that is the case, do you have any evidence to back your claim?

The tags were given by people from Sportsbet. They didn't like the rating given to Sportsbet. notblox stalked me for years. Admittedly, I used the trust system wrong. I gave him negative trust for stalking and later changed it to neutral. He said, "I'm going to teach you a lesson". In 2016 Twitchy tagged me for something that happened in 2014.  He didn't like the 2016 rating.

Honestly, I normally don't care about tags. Someone asked me to fight notblox tag. I said, I don't care. Helping players is important. Holy runs interference for the books and wants to silence me.

[Rating Place]

If we put aside the other issues for a moment, it seems your concern (or main concern) relates to the allegation that holydarkness is not being neutral in some or all of his interventions because he is/was participating in certain campaigns. Is that the crux of the argument you are presenting? If that is the case, do you have any evidence to back your claim?

The tags were given by people from Sportsbet. They didn't like the rating given to Sportsbet. notblox stalked me for years. Admittedly, I used the trust system wrong. I gave him negative trust for stalking and later changed it to neutral. He said, "I'm going to teach you a lesson". In 2016 Twitchy tagged me for something that happened in 2014.  He didn't like the 2016 rating.

Honestly, I normally don't care about tags. Someone asked me to fight notblox tag. I said, I don't care. Helping players is important. Holy runs interference for the books and wants to silence me.

First off, thanks for taking this issue seriously.

My concern isn't money. I don't care how anyone makes their money through sig campaign or under the table. My concern is that players get paid 100% of what's owed. To be blunt, holy is incompetent and believes everything that a casino tells him. Because of his recommendations, I can't remember one time ( memory only, haven't fact checked yet) in the last 2 years where players have received their rightfully owed winnings based on holy's recommendation. Poster pressure has overturned holy's recommendations and winnings have been paid through forum pressure. This is sportsbook only.

Because I'm the biggest voice on the players side and holy's tendency to recommend for the sportsbook as far as winnings being paid, this has led to tension. The negative trust is based on holy trying to silence my voice.

ziportan

the thing is , holydarkness is prone to believe anything that the casinos say -although they are OBVIOUS lies- than the players claims which are supported by actual evidences.....

Ratings Place

holydarkness, he does make a good point. You have to stop believing everything the casino and casino reps tell you. ......

Ratings Place

I don’t know why you continue to make things up. The provider can’t compare. I have no idea why you are doing this to these players.

Flexie80

Hahaha, you have absolutely no idea how sportsbetting works obviously....

Flexie80

My purpose is not to sling mud at you, my purpose is to teach you a bit of how sportsbetting works. Because from reading your posts I can see you don't know much yet.....

Then when the case is over, holy continues to attack me.

holy

................that's later revised and added one more point on #176. So, if you want to address anything and clarify your statements or salvage your face, it's post #176. Otherwise, it doesn't interest me to read and address any further demonstration of your incompetency and impotence.

Ratings Place

the case is over. I’m not replying to your never ending personal attacks.

I'll get a lot more proof and links later.

I'm asking for the trust to be taken down so that it doesn't discredit my opinion fighting for players.

[nutildah]

Obsessed

I wonder how much time holy did researching to insult me. He lost in the end.

Yes, he clearly lost as you have far out-obsessed him. BTW I'm not reading all that. If you can't make your point more succinctly, its because you don't actually have one.

I'm asking for the trust to be taken down so that it doesn't discredit my opinion fighting for players.

Your opinion frequently deserves pushback as there are certain instances when, for whatever reason, you refuse to admit that you misunderstood something, or didn't have the full picture. I've been through this already & provided examples earlier. This has been going on for multiple years now, its not a new development.

What's worse is instead of changing your behavior, you just accuse people of doing the same things you're doing. Its impossible to reason with you on serious, nuanced topics. Surely I can't be the first person in your life to ever tell you this about yourself.

Rather than writing walls of text accusing Holy of this or that, perhaps you should set about proving that his feedback is wrong through your actions... right now you're just trying to convince people his feedback isn't valuable, and you won't get anywhere with that.

[Rating Place]

LoyceV

Negative (shown as -1)
If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
If you really hate someone and he’s a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

     You shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like    

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0

[JollyGood]

Something that has an immediate effect on any member reading your posts is that many are mostly far too long with quotes and replies. It will help make posts easier to read and understand if you somewhat reduce the size of your posts.

If you genuinely feel he has not helped people have their money back in the previous two years, put that in a legible list of complaints/concerns and ask him to address the points.

Again, if you are alluding to holydarkness taking payments from casinos in order to collude against a complainant then you must provide evidence.

In my unbiased opinion, I can state that I have seen him engage on a regular basis with members that are making complaints against casinos as well as the casinos themselves. He looks at the information the accuser has supplied and asks the accused to provide a reply. Then vice-versa.

If we are being honest here, we both know there are many cases of multi-accounting and breach of rules by those making complaints but that does not apply to all of the cases. Most of them are closed on the basis of that accusation and when made, what is holydarkness supposed to do? How much evidence will the casino show him to support their claim when they are tied in to various data protection laws?

It is the other cases where casinos have selectively scammed members that deserve more attention.

As we both are aware, holydarkness is not paid for his time, he is volunteering his time in an attempt to streamline a process that expedites complaints against casinos and seeks resolutions. He is the so-called man in the middle, he cannot force either party to do anything. If anything, he can express an opinion to both parties but I fail to understand why you believe he can influence the outcome.

First off, thanks for taking this issue seriously.

My concern isn't money. I don't care how anyone makes their money through sig campaign or under the table. My concern is that players get paid 100% of what's owed. To be blunt, holy is incompetent and believes everything that a casino tells him. Because of his recommendations, I can't remember one time ( memory only, haven't fact checked yet) in the last 2 years where players have received their rightfully owed winnings based on holy's recommendation. Poster pressure has overturned holy's recommendations and winnings have been paid through forum pressure. This is sportsbook only.

Because I'm the biggest voice on the players side and holy's tendency to recommend for the sportsbook as far as winnings being paid, this has led to tension. The negative trust is based on holy trying to silence my voice.

[Rating Place]

Something that has an immediate effect on any member reading your posts is that many are mostly far too long with quotes and replies. It will help make posts easier to read and understand if you somewhat reduce the size of your posts.

If you genuinely feel he has not helped people have their money back in the previous two years, put that in a legible list of complaints/concerns and ask him to address the points.

Again, if you are alluding to holydarkness taking payments from casinos in order to collude against a complainant then you must provide evidence.

In my unbiased opinion, I can state that I have seen him engage on a regular basis with members that are making complaints against casinos as well as the casinos themselves. He looks at the information the accuser has supplied and asks the accused to provide a reply. Then vice-versa.

If we are being honest here, we both know there are many cases of multi-accounting and breach of rules by those making complaints but that does not apply to all of the cases. Most of them are closed on the basis of that accusation and when made, what is holydarkness supposed to do? How much evidence will the casino show him to support their claim when they are tied in to various data protection laws?

It is the other cases where casinos have selectively scammed members that deserve more attention.

As we both are aware, holydarkness is not paid for his time, he is volunteering his time in an attempt to streamline a process that expedites complaints against casinos and seeks resolutions. He is the so-called man in the middle, he cannot force either party to do anything. If anything, he can express an opinion to both parties but I fail to understand why you believe he can influence the outcome.

First off, thanks for taking this issue seriously.

My concern isn't money. I don't care how anyone makes their money through sig campaign or under the table. My concern is that players get paid 100% of what's owed. To be blunt, holy is incompetent and believes everything that a casino tells him. Because of his recommendations, I can't remember one time ( memory only, haven't fact checked yet) in the last 2 years where players have received their rightfully owed winnings based on holy's recommendation. Poster pressure has overturned holy's recommendations and winnings have been paid through forum pressure. This is sportsbook only.

Because I'm the biggest voice on the players side and holy's tendency to recommend for the sportsbook as far as winnings being paid, this has led to tension. The negative trust is based on holy trying to silence my voice.

I agree 100% that multi-accounting takes a long time. I don’t know a thing about casino play. I’m just talking sports betting where the bet is a win or it’s a loss. No negotiations are needed and a win means winnings should be paid. Holy says a book can take winnings and that’s when we argue.

Putting all that aside, holy hasn’t met the standard posted by LoyceV for negative trust.

I do sports disputes here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=717790.4440. It takes days. A book makes an allegation. They have to prove that allegation. If they can’t , the player gets paid in full.

Edited to shorten.

[yahoo62278]

If both holydarkness and Rating Place have a disagreement over how the tag is interpreted or the grounds for giving the tag in the first place, that will stay as neither is willing to change their position. On that basis, Rating Place should put his energy elsewhere rather than posting about the tag.

I am curious though, he has received a neutral and red tag before the tag holydarkness gave yet he has not complained about them.

I cannot be the only one, going through this thread is difficult for the eyes. The endless long posts and scrolling involved has to be taking a toll on other members too. That has to be the reason why there is very little input here from members.

I spoke with holy on telegram and gave my opinion, then Ratings Place via pm and both were nice but as you see neither listened. The red tag from holydarkness is borderline trust abuse IMO and should be a neutral.

Rating Place is showing how obsessive and , for lack of a better word, ignorant he can and will be over the tag. No-one wants to read or cares to read the walls of text that he is posting trying to get his point across in a poor manner. It's hard to follow as part of it I feel is only a partial quote and people would need to read each situation to even really get a good sense of what is going on.

Regardless of my opinion, these users are still able to do what they want with their tags or posts. I think putting rating place on ignore is the way to go at this point from the way they are handling the situation they are not going to stop acting insane til the tag is removed and holy doesn't appear to be removing it. I am removing myself from this thread after this post regardless as it's useless to keep giving input on an endless situation.

[Rating Place]

holy

In short, Betby made the call, and Rollbit's hands are tied on this as they can't overrule the call.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5543549.0



Another Betby book

Odds providers don't make our trading decisions, we do.

Our odds providers don't pay players, we do.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1616139.3620

[holydarkness]

If both holydarkness and Rating Place have a disagreement over how the tag is interpreted or the grounds for giving the tag in the first place, that will stay as neither is willing to change their position. On that basis, Rating Place should put his energy elsewhere rather than posting about the tag.

I am curious though, he has received a neutral and red tag before the tag holydarkness gave yet he has not complained about them.

I cannot be the only one, going through this thread is difficult for the eyes. The endless long posts and scrolling involved has to be taking a toll on other members too. That has to be the reason why there is very little input here from members.

I spoke with holy on telegram and gave my opinion, then Ratings Place via pm and both were nice but as you see neither listened. The red tag from holydarkness is borderline trust abuse IMO and should be a neutral.

Rating Place is showing how obsessive and , for lack of a better word, ignorant he can and will be over the tag. No-one wants to read or cares to read the walls of text that he is posting trying to get his point across in a poor manner. It's hard to follow as part of it I feel is only a partial quote and people would need to read each situation to even really get a good sense of what is going on.

Regardless of my opinion, these users are still able to do what they want with their tags or posts. I think putting rating place on ignore is the way to go at this point from the way they are handling the situation they are not going to stop acting insane til the tag is removed and holy doesn't appear to be removing it. I am removing myself from this thread after this post regardless as it's useless to keep giving input on an endless situation.

Just to keep it straight, I was about to write here about four hours ago, after Rating Place finally address a point that is relevant to the title of his topic instead of wall of irrelevant text. I happened to get a phone call from a friend for a quick lunch, thus I can only write this after I'm home. Just to be transparent that I'll address the matter regardless a post or two.

About whether my feedback is an abuse and didn't go in line with LoyceV's guideline, I would beg to differ. I do write to you, yahoo62278 that I'll mull over it, and when I wrote that, I was hoping Rating Place finally address the matter that will "force me" to change my tag to neutral, as I abide forum rules.

Loyce's guide to negative feedback is [I use RP's quote just because I don't want to hunt the original thread and I memorize the rough point, so I know he didn't manipulate that]:

Negative (shown as -1)
If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
If you really hate someone and he’s a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

Scam is defined by Merriam-Webster,

a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

My tag is:

holydarkness

2026-04-12

Reference

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 and read the whole thread [warning, massive wall of text] if you want to learn deeper (Delete)

Rating Place opened the thead with wall of text, a massive one, that I countered with even more massive wall as mine are supplemented with evidences and basis. I narrowed each part down for easy navigation by framing them into a question to Rating Place, that he can answer as rebuttal. None of it were answered. Not even the simplest one.

Now, let's move to the point where I think the negative tag is correct and is according to Loyce's guideline; the very first one:

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.[...]

As it happened, in beyond abundant and redundant, Rating Place insist that I was misinformed and that he knows better, that flag from provider were just flag, [summarized and freely rephrased] a simple warning that sportsbook can ignore, despite my numerous attempt to tell him that it is not what he thought. I've seen flags from provider, I've asked my contacts of what'll happen if flag was raised by provider.

Now, this is the keypoint: Rating Place insist [and take pride on] that the fund of the flag were going into the casino's pocket and that casino can freely abide the rule or not, and by the sheer public pressure [that also involves in his art of snipping posts and twisting statements, of which IIRC fall under category "deceptive act"] he got the casino to pay.

THIS is where the negative flag instead of neutral tag is based on. His insistence that provider's flag is just a warning and not binding to casinos.

The way I see it, casinos through their representative accounts are also part of the forum members. Thus, they're entitled to the same treatment, protection, and fair judgment as other members. Forcing "someone" to pay, based on outdated knowledge that Rating Place insist as the truth [and that I know nothing about, that the casinos lying to me and I take their words easily], be it by sheer force of peer pressure as result of his "deception act", or [this is where things goes snowballed] the personal behind-the-screen cases and/or cases that he handled on his thread, where he get the sportsbook to pay the player because he deemed the flag by provider was not good, put the member of this forum [the casinos] in financial loss and if people not warned through tag, the practica will continue.

Yahoo62278, I stick to my words when I said I really value your input and would mull over to change the tag. Yet, Rating Place's insistence and negligence to address my points [or even just one of the seven points I raised], especially the one above, is why the tag stays and why I think it should be neg until he learn to stop deceiving people.

Rating Place, you insist that I lied, I can easily disprove that, I've offered this over and over, and you always backed down when you realize the stake is real. If you're so sure that you know how things works in sportsbetting and provider flagging, and that I was being fooled by sportsbook [etc. etc. etc.], why were you so afraid to take my challenge?

Escrow 1,560,000 USD, I'll show you the evidence in abundance. The amount shouldn't worry you as you'll get it back, it is escrowed, I was wrong all this time, now you've publicly proven that I have zero knowledge of sportsbook and provider, and I have to retract the tag.

What stops you?

[Rating Place]

If both holydarkness and Rating Place have a disagreement over how the tag is interpreted or the grounds for giving the tag in the first place, that will stay as neither is willing to change their position. On that basis, Rating Place should put his energy elsewhere rather than posting about the tag.

I am curious though, he has received a neutral and red tag before the tag holydarkness gave yet he has not complained about them.

I cannot be the only one, going through this thread is difficult for the eyes. The endless long posts and scrolling involved has to be taking a toll on other members too. That has to be the reason why there is very little input here from members.

I spoke with holy on telegram and gave my opinion, then Ratings Place via pm and both were nice but as you see neither listened. The red tag from holydarkness is borderline trust abuse IMO and should be a neutral.

Rating Place is showing how obsessive and , for lack of a better word, ignorant he can and will be over the tag. No-one wants to read or cares to read the walls of text that he is posting trying to get his point across in a poor manner. It's hard to follow as part of it I feel is only a partial quote and people would need to read each situation to even really get a good sense of what is going on.

Regardless of my opinion, these users are still able to do what they want with their tags or posts. I think putting rating place on ignore is the way to go at this point from the way they are handling the situation they are not going to stop acting insane til the tag is removed and holy doesn't appear to be removing it. I am removing myself from this thread after this post regardless as it's useless to keep giving input on an endless situation.

Just to keep it straight, I was about to write here about four hours ago, after Rating Place finally address a point that is relevant to the title of his topic instead of wall of irrelevant text. I happened to get a phone call from a friend for a quick lunch, thus I can only write this after I'm home. Just to be transparent that I'll address the matter regardless a post or two.

About whether my feedback is an abuse and didn't go in line with LoyceV's guideline, I would beg to differ. I do write to you, yahoo62278 that I'll mull over it, and when I wrote that, I was hoping Rating Place finally address the matter that will "force me" to change my tag to neutral, as I abide forum rules.

Loyce's guide to negative feedback is [I use RP's quote just because I don't want to hunt the original thread and I memorize the rough point, so I know he didn't manipulate that]:

Negative (shown as -1)
If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
If you really hate someone and he’s a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

Scam is defined by Merriam-Webster,

a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

My tag is:

holydarkness

2026-04-12

Reference

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 and read the whole thread [warning, massive wall of text] if you want to learn deeper (Delete)

Rating Place opened the thead with wall of text, a massive one, that I countered with even more massive wall as mine are supplemented with evidences and basis. I narrowed each part down for easy navigation by framing them into a question to Rating Place, that he can answer as rebuttal. None of it were answered. Not even the simplest one.

Now, let's move to the point where I think the negative tag is correct and is according to Loyce's guideline; the very first one:

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.[...]

As it happened, in beyond abundant and redundant, Rating Place insist that I was misinformed and that he knows better, that flag from provider were just flag, [summarized and freely rephrased] a simple warning that sportsbook can ignore, despite my numerous attempt to tell him that it is not what he thought. I've seen flags from provider, I've asked my contacts of what'll happen if flag was raised by provider.

Now, this is the keypoint: Rating Place insist [and take pride on] that the fund of the flag were going into the casino's pocket and that casino can freely abide the rule or not, and by the sheer public pressure [that also involves in his art of snipping posts and twisting statements, of which IIRC fall under category "deceptive act"] he got the casino to pay.

THIS is where the negative flag instead of neutral tag is based on. His insistence that provider's flag is just a warning and not binding to casinos.

The way I see it, casinos through their representative accounts are also part of the forum members. Thus, they're entitled to the same treatment, protection, and fair judgment as other members. Forcing "someone" to pay, based on outdated knowledge that Rating Place insist as the truth [and that I know nothing about, that the casinos lying to me and I take their words easily], be it by sheer force of peer pressure as result of his "deception act", or [this is where things goes snowballed] the personal behind-the-screen cases and/or cases that he handled on his thread, where he get the sportsbook to pay the player because he deemed the flag by provider was not good, put the member of this forum [the casinos] in financial loss and if people not warned through tag, the practica will continue.

Yahoo62278, I stick to my words when I said I really value your input and would mull over to change the tag. Yet, Rating Place's insistence and negligence to address my points [or even just one of the seven points I raised], especially the one above, is why the tag stays and why I think it should be neg until he learn to stop deceiving people.

Rating Place, you insist that I lied, I can easily disprove that, I've offered this over and over, and you always backed down when you realize the stake is real. If you're so sure that you know how things works in sportsbetting and provider flagging, and that I was being fooled by sportsbook [etc. etc. etc.], why were you so afraid to take my challenge?

Escrow 1,560,000 USD, I'll show you the evidence in abundance. The amount shouldn't worry you as you'll get it back, it is escrowed, I was wrong all this time, now you've publicly proven that I have zero knowledge of sportsbook and provider, and I have to retract the tag.

What stops you?

Normally I don't like to answer you on these things since they proceed to long drawn out arguments. Most of the time I just ignore it. Once again most of what you said above is untrue. The relationship between the book and provider is one where the book hires the provider for odds, profiling and risk mitigation. The book is not the middleman. I don't think that anyone will read it but if they would like to know, I'll answer every question.

You gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda 7 times. You admitted to being bias towards BetPanda. We all know what happened.

edit- I missed the part.

THIS is where the negative flag instead of neutral tag is based on. His insistence that provider's flag is just a warning and not binding to casinos.

Then the flag should come down. Read what Betcoin said, Betcoin makes all the trading decisions. Flags are warnings. Everything is AI and automated. The providers software is highly customizable and the book can override the provider. The provider has a strong B2B license and it would be highly illegal to do what you say.

Jackpotter (Betby book) just went against Betby's flag. There are 70 Betby crypto books with different rules and ToS.

[holydarkness]

Normally I don't like to answer you on these things since they proceed to long drawn out arguments. Most of the time I just ignore it. Once again most of what you said above is untrue. I don't think that anyone will read it but if they would like to know, I'll answer every question.

You gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda 7 times. You admitted to being bias towards BetPanda. We all know what happened.

How long can it be? Gather 1,560,000 USD, choose an escrow, inform us here who the escrow is, who will also confirm they have the fund in their hand, and I'll do the rest.

I gave you negative trust because you kept twisting words, create fake narrative, when asked to substantiate the statement, you ran and deflect. Also, you insist that what I think I know is not true, and thus you get your peer pressure and mediate [remember, by your own statement, you've solve much more cases than me] with what you think is true.

This is detrimental to casinos as they're experiencing financial loss due to your mediation under false understanding of how provider operates. I've put you on ignore for months just so I can focus on cases instead of having to address you and your misleading posts. I am not Buddha, so I don't have his patience.

Waiting for the escrow info.

While we're waiting for the escrow to succesfully processed, I believe "they" would like to know, because following this thread and my reply [and the reason I stopped replying] is because they reached me and tell me to better focus my mind on other things as they know you don't have the courage to answer me and keep on deflecting.

Just to be sure they will read it, while we're waiting for that escrow, perhaps you can address #42? That's the simplest question.

[note to public: I am not that interested with the amount, I made it impossibly high because that's the only way to penetrate his thick skull and introduce him to reality]

[edit: adding more words in berween sentences as I forgot I want to say and include them in my rebuttal]

[Rating Place]

Normally I don't like to answer you on these things since they proceed to long drawn out arguments. Most of the time I just ignore it. Once again most of what you said above is untrue. I don't think that anyone will read it but if they would like to know, I'll answer every question.

You gave me negative trust the day after I criticized BetPanda 7 times. You admitted to being bias towards BetPanda. We all know what happened.

How long can it be? Gather 1,560,000 million USD, choose an escrow, inform us here who the escrow is, who will also confirm they have the fund in their hand, and I'll do the rest.

I gave you negative trust because you kept twisting words and when asked to substantiate the statement, you ran and deflect. I've put you on ignore for months just so I can focus on cases instead of having to address you and your misleading posts. I am not Buddha, so I don't have his patience.

Waiting for the escrow info.

While we're waiting for the escrow to succesfully processed, I believe "they" would like to know, because following this thread and my reply [and the reason I stopped replying] is because they reached me and tell me to better focus my mind on other things as they know you don't have the courage to answer me and keep on deflecting.

Just to be sure they will read it, while we're waiting for that escrow, perhaps you can address #42? That's the simplest question.

[note to public: I am not that interested with the amount, I made it impossibly high because that's the only way to penetrate his thick skull and introduce him to reality]

holy, this is what do all the time. You just said a flag is binding. Jackpotter went against it. The rules are different at each Betby book. It would be impossible for Betby to make binding decisions to all 70 crypto books along with fiat books that use Betby when all the rules and ToS are different. The thing that stays the same is they all get the same flag(warning) for that player.

edit- It's customized and books base their settings on risk tolerance.

[holydarkness]

holy, this is what do all the time. You just said a flag is binding. Jackpotter went against it. The rules are different at each Betby book. It would be impossible for Betby to make binding decisions to all 70 crypto books along with fiat books that use Betby when all the rules and ToS are different.

Has the fund securely escrowed? What make you wait? I thought you weren't addressing them because they proceed to long drawn out argument. The point number 1 of my rebuttal to your opening post doesn't need long drawn argument. Escrow the fund, I'll provide evidence in abundance that even a thick-skulled someone will understand.

And how exactly question on part 3 [depicted again in post #42] is a long drawn argument? I simply ask you to prove I said something you said I said on 27th June 2025.

[Rating Place]

holy, this is what do all the time. You just said a flag is binding. Jackpotter went against it. The rules are different at each Betby book. It would be impossible for Betby to make binding decisions to all 70 crypto books along with fiat books that use Betby when all the rules and ToS are different.

Has the fund securely escrowed? What make you wait? I thought you weren't addressing them because they proceed to long drawn out argument. The point number 1 of my rebuttal to your opening post doesn't need long drawn argument. Escrow the fund, I'll provide evidence in abundance that even a thick-skulled someone will understand.

And how exactly question on part 3 [depicted again in post #42] is a long drawn argument? I simply ask you to prove I said something you said I said on 27th June 2025.

what are we betting? Do it in one sentence. All 5 of your contacts were wrong last time. The book is not the middleman. The flag travels, nothing else. One book may have a $5 limit on a player, the second Betby book $100 and NL at the third Betby book. It's an individual risk tolerance set by the sportsbook. This is the problem. You rule for the sportsbooks because of the misinformation they pass to you.