Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem

[Rating Place]

I didn’t sign a thing and if you go look you said flag and I said two bet slips. You didn’t deposit the money either.

Forgot to mention, if odds provider made all the decisions then you wouldn’t be needed. Nothing to negotiate. You believe everything these scam books say. Nice scheme going on. Books keep winnings on your recommendation.

[holydarkness]

I didn’t sign a thing and if you go look you said flag and I said two bet slips. You didn’t deposit the money either.

Forgot to mention, if odds provider made all the decisions then you wouldn’t be needed. Nothing to negotiate. You believe everything these scam books say. Nice scheme going on. Books keep winnings on your recommendation.

You "took the bait", an idiom of accepting the challenge [as I've sufficiently backed up with internet definitios]. I don't need to deposit the money as the clause we entered and you "took the bait" is for you to escrow the fund, of which when I am proven wrong, the fund will be returned to you and the tag has to be forcibly removed due to forum rules that I strongly abide. When you're proven wrong, the fund is mine. The binding written agreement has been made upon your confirmation of "I took the bait again", backing down from this, though completely up to the DTs who support or oppose the flag I soon will raise upon you, can be perceived as your violation to written contract with me to any individuals measuring the flag.

And about odd providers made all the decision, once again, irrelevant. We're here talking about whether or not provider's flag has their weight and forced the sportsbook instead of just [as you sugggested] a warning that sportsbook can ignore.

[JollyGood]

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.

Why would you or any member want to use a standard for tags that was created by any member when the rules are already clear?

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.

If you browse the thread you might see the reply. It is a pity that your efforts engaging with both parties did not lead to a mutually acceptable resolution. This thread has descended in to a complete farce. I will follow you out of here and will unwatch the thread as contributing anything seems to be nothing more than a waste of time.

[Rating Place]

AI

Betby is the odds provider (and full sportsbook solution supplier), while the “Sportsbook” (the betting site/operator) is the client/boss in the relationship. Betby does not hold de facto power over the operators it serves.
Quick Breakdown:
•  Betby is a B2B (business-to-business) company. It provides a complete, white-label or integrated sportsbook platform to online betting operators (casinos, crypto books like BC.Game, Rollbit, Betfury, etc.). This includes:
   •  Odds feeds (pre-match and live)
   •  Risk management and trading tools
   •  AI-driven features
   •  Esports, virtual sports, and other content
   •  Customization options
Many operators use Betby’s system “out of the box” or with some tweaks, which is why a lot of sites share similar odds, markets, and behaviors. 
•  The Sportsbook/Operator is the actual betting brand you interact with as a player. They license or integrate Betby’s technology. In theory, they are the “boss” because they decide:

[Rating Place]

holy, is this all correct?

1. You deceived me with a contract that said I had to deposit $1,500,000 and you had to deposit $0?

2. I said that I wanted to bet that you had no "proof". Your contract says "flag" which isn't proof?

3. Even though there were many scam accusations against BetPanda and I was calling them a scam casino, you joined their sig campaign?

4. There is currently a flag up for BetPanda?

5. You closed a case protecting BetPanda. Now you are not being paid, because the sig campaign ended and the case has been reopened.

6 You admitted to being bias .

5. You say that sportsbooks are within their right to confiscate winnings + deposits for arbitrage and value betting?

6. You have never seen bet slips showing the above occurred. All your recommendations are based on AI flags. The book gets a flag and there are no other communications?

7. I take the opposite side of you and want the players to be paid their winnings?

8. You gave me negative trust?

[nutildah]

Your AI:

Betby is the odds provider (and full sportsbook solution supplier), while the “Sportsbook” (the betting site/operator) is the client/boss in the relationship. Betby does not hold de facto power over the operators it serves.

My AI:

Betby does offer—and heavily promotes—hybrid and fully managed trading/risk services. In these setups (which the company says 100% of their operators use to some degree), Betby’s own team, risk engine, AI tools, and global monitoring handle:

Bet flagging (wrong odds, suspicious activity, value patterns)
Settlement decisions
Liability management
Player profiling and restrictions

Official Betby materials explicitly state they “take care of all sportsbook-related operations including risk management, trading… so you can focus on user acquisition.” They also highlight “centralized risk management” and “standardized settlement” in products like Betby Predictions, and their hybrid model combines global feeds with “in-house control” that empowers operators but is run by Betby.

Again, you're just trying to weasel your way out having to admit you don't actually know what you're talking about. You've ignored every reasonable suggestion presented in this thread to persist in this quagmire of self-inflicted stupidity. How's that going for you? Much changed, has it?

[Rating Place]

Your AI:

Betby is the odds provider (and full sportsbook solution supplier), while the “Sportsbook” (the betting site/operator) is the client/boss in the relationship. Betby does not hold de facto power over the operators it serves.

My AI:

Betby does offer—and heavily promotes—hybrid and fully managed trading/risk services. In these setups (which the company says 100% of their operators use to some degree), Betby’s own team, risk engine, AI tools, and global monitoring handle:

Bet flagging (wrong odds, suspicious activity, value patterns)
Settlement decisions
Liability management
Player profiling and restrictions

Official Betby materials explicitly state they “take care of all sportsbook-related operations including risk management, trading… so you can focus on user acquisition.” They also highlight “centralized risk management” and “standardized settlement” in products like Betby Predictions, and their hybrid model combines global feeds with “in-house control” that empowers operators but is run by Betby.

Again, you're just trying to weasel your way out having to admit you don't actually know what you're talking about. You've ignored every reasonable suggestion presented in this thread to persist in this quagmire of self-inflicted stupidity. How's that going for you? Much changed, has it?

I don’t know crypto and couldn’t define a nonce. I came here to learn.

You’re in the same boat with sports gambling. You think the Odds Provider is going to tell a sportsbook don’t pay this player or pay that player when all the books have different rules. Like I said, it’s not your thing. I wish you would stop chiming in on it.

You’re almost as bad as holy. Betby says exactly what they can do and you don’t get it. All businesses could 100% outsource.

And stop saying players are limited for winning when it’s CLV. Now go do some research on CLV and risk tolerance. Don’t post, just learn.

[nutildah]

You’re in the same boat with sports gambling. You think the Odds Provider is going to tell a sportsbook don’t pay this player or pay that player when all the books have different rules. Like I said, it’s not your thing. I wish you would stop chiming in on it.

You’re almost as bad as holy. Betby says exactly what they can do and you don’t get it. All businesses could 100% outsource.

And stop saying players are limited for winning when it’s CLV. Now go do some research on CLV and risk tolerance. Don’t post, just learn.

This is what you do when you're totally out of other options and can no longer argue using logic: you turn to the appeal to authority fallacy.. "Just trust me, I know things and you don't know them".. you didn't actually rebut anything I said. You're not saying anything at all by this point. As such I won't be responding here anymore.

[Rating Place]

You’re in the same boat with sports gambling. You think the Odds Provider is going to tell a sportsbook don’t pay this player or pay that player when all the books have different rules. Like I said, it’s not your thing. I wish you would stop chiming in on it.

You’re almost as bad as holy. Betby says exactly what they can do and you don’t get it. All businesses could 100% outsource.

And stop saying players are limited for winning when it’s CLV. Now go do some research on CLV and risk tolerance. Don’t post, just learn.

This is what you do when you're totally out of other options and can no longer argue using logic: you turn to the appeal to authority fallacy.. "Just trust me, I know things and you don't know them".. you didn't actually rebut anything I said. You're not saying anything at all by this point. As such I won't be responding here anymore.

when XYes contacted me do you think we talked about provider or CLV? Not one mention of provider between either of us. It takes you and holy years to get things through your head. I’m not going to explain it 100 times.

[Rating Place]

Holydarkness is the most morally corrupt individual that I’ve dealt with in person or on a forum. He stated that if I didn’t post up $1,500,000 for a bet that I never agreed to that he would open up a flag against me. Changed the terms in the contract he proposed since I said there was no proof of arbitrage. He said flag in the proposed bet which isn’t proof.

Tried to trick me with the terms of the contract to where I had to post up $1.5m and he had to post up $0. I never agreed and no one is insane enough to post up $1.5m in a forum bet. Holy said that I took the bait.

[Kazkaz27]

Rating Place, notice who hears you and who defends what you know is wrong. You’re not changing their minds or their actions. You’ve made your points—there’s nothing left for you in this thread.

I’m not shocked by how this unfolded. Think about it: you’ve been a member for a decade and hardly received any red trusts while being an active, contributing member. The moment you challenged a DT1 doing something you believed was wrong, other DT1s piled on or stayed silent and complicit. You’re not in their circle, and they will make it their mission to ensure you never are. They don’t care if you call them out or give them red trust—you’re not a DT1, so you cannot meaningfully impact or stop them beyond what you’ve already done.

That said, there is another way that can turn the tides. It will take a wave of members to challenge them and their abuse of power. Distrust their ~username in the trust settings. If enough people distrust their judgment, they will drop from DT1 and be replaced by more trusted users. Of course, this won’t be easy—they all protect each other and use armies of alts to gain or maintain power and status.

Here is a non-biased analysis of this entire thread: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_7e95231a-7d1c-4118-aa15-7e197a1c0f83

[nutildah]

I hate having to expend energy replying to AI chatbots, but when they tell lies about me I'm forced to respond:

The moment you challenged a DT1 doing something you believed was wrong, other DT1s piled on or stayed silent and complicit.

This couldn't possibly be because the "other DT1s" that bothered to speak up here agreed with Holydarkness and disagreed with Ratings Place, could it? Most other DTs are "staying silent" because they don't care, because this is a non-issue.

And nobody is "afraid" to go up against me or the general opinion, it happens all the time, and that's because I'm fairly understanding, and the trust system is fairly flexible. Its not as rigid or exclusive as you make it out to be. Most people in DT1 don't care about DT as much as you do.

You’re not in their circle, and they will make it their mission to ensure you never are.

You need to be able to exhibit some kind of willingness to be reasonable to be on DT. Ratings Place has exhibited the antithesis of this since he came back, in 2023.

[Kazkaz27]

You need to be able to exhibit some kind of willingness to be reasonable to be on DT.

I respectfully disagree. I haven’t always found that to be true. Although, I really wish it were — and that your point was undeniably accurate.

Most other DTs are "staying silent" because they don't care, because this is a non-issue.

If this is truly the case and the majority sees all this as a “non-issue”, then I would argue that Holy’s negative trust in Rating Place is misplaced.

[haircombint]

Holydarkness is the most morally corrupt individual that I’ve dealt with in person or on a forum. He stated that if I didn’t post up $1,500,000 for a bet that I never agreed to that he would open up a flag against me. Changed the terms in the contract he proposed since I said there was no proof of arbitrage. He said flag in the proposed bet which isn’t proof.

Tried to trick me with the terms of the contract to where I had to post up $1.5m and he had to post up $0. I never agreed and no one is insane enough to post up $1.5m in a forum bet. Holy said that I took the bait.

The only one more morally corrupt than him is the Nutella Man, Nutildah.

[nutildah]

Most other DTs are "staying silent" because they don't care, because this is a non-issue.

If this is truly the case and the majority sees all this as a “non-issue”, then I would argue that Holy’s negative trust in Rating Place is misplaced.

That's not what I meant. The "non-issue" is Holy's tag on Ratings Place. Nobody is rushing to RP's defense for a reason: he's too hard to work with and frequently has no idea what he's talking about.

The fact that he's the last to ever admit it just compounds the problem. He's also undermined complainant's chances of recovering money from the casino on a few different occasions, telling them "this will never work," and "you're wasting your time," all in a childish effort to spite Holy.

So yeah, I can totally see where Holy is coming from here, as do other DTs who are at all familiar on the subject.

If a DT is not familiar with a subject then there's no real reason for them to pipe up unless there is some unfounded & grave injustice taking place. In this situation (as with yours) there is not.

[Rating Place]

Most other DTs are "staying silent" because they don't care, because this is a non-issue.

If this is truly the case and the majority sees all this as a “non-issue”, then I would argue that Holy’s negative trust in Rating Place is misplaced.

That's not what I meant. The "non-issue" is Holy's tag on Ratings Place. Nobody is rushing to RP's defense for a reason: he's too hard to work with and frequently has no idea what he's talking about.

The fact that he's the last to ever admit it just compounds the problem. He's also undermined complainant's chances of recovering money from the casino on a few different occasions, telling them "this will never work," and "you're wasting your time," all in a childish effort to spite Holy.

So yeah, I can totally see where Holy is coming from here, as do other DTs who are at all familiar on the subject.

If a DT is not familiar with a subject then there's no real reason for them to pipe up unless there is some unfounded & grave injustice taking place. In this situation (as with yours) there is not.

If I and others didn’t disagree with holy, no one gets paid winnings. If you disagree with holy, he doesn’t take it well.

Read the AI version and read scam accusations. Holy is the guy starting every fight in scam accusations with personal attacks. Sure, I’m wrong too. As he says, I take the bait. He should just discuss the case and there wouldn’t be problems.

You are the only one that agrees with red trust. Kazkaz27 knows what’s happening. He’s a smart guy.

[Rating Place]

Here's a Shuffle case where Shuffle states the match was fixed and voided $30,000 in winnings. Holy is doing binding arbitration.

Accusation

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

In normal arbitration the only question is if the match is fixed. The arbiter would look at the integrity report and then decide.





Instead holy takes an incompetent approach. Holy’s answer when questioned by the player about the unnecessary information requested.

Let's just say I wanted to cover every bases and get the most data [pieces of puzzle] that will make the image I try to construct as complete as I can?

Like before, the importance and relevance of one data asked from each sides will be made known upon verdict. And the beauty of them is, I asked both sides data and questions, with both sides barely knows what I really try to figure out. I find it helps greatly in minimizing data manipulation.

If you don't mind?

This is why no one has been paid winnings in 2 years.

[Kazkaz27]

There may well be a legitimate strategy or process at play.

Holy, could you please explain the reason for the delay in processing and provide a clear update on the next steps and expected timeline?

Here is a non-bias analysis of the situation. https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_f080f6be-9992-4167-9062-71d441888319

[Rating Place]

I’ll jump back in to give an idea what the integrity report looks like. The report will show volume spikes and line movements. Normally a person looks at it to determine its validity.

If it may be valid then they would get the betting history from the sportsbook. They would match that up to determine if the player had knowledge of the match being fixed.

[holydarkness]

There may well be a legitimate strategy or process at play.

Holy, could you please explain the reason for the delay in processing and provide a clear update on the next steps and expected timeline?

Here is a non-bias analysis of the situation. https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_f080f6be-9992-4167-9062-71d441888319

I can only answer partially: the delays for processing is because more data are needed. Just like every cases, each side, intentionally or not, hide more than what they said.

The clear update of the next steps are uncertain, every case is dynamic, it flows and developed as new information gathered. And with that, the next steps also shifted. Some slightly, some significantly.

Expected timeline? Heavily depends on time taken by both parties to provide what I asked.