Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem

[Rating Place]

These should be fact based without arbitrator going outside the scope of the accusation. The accusation is match fixing. It’s bias to look for any other infraction.

There’s nothing that a party could say that would be misleading. Read the report and look at the bets.

[Rating Place]

All that is needed is betting history and flag. The book made an accusation of match fixing, now they must prove it. Nothing is needed from the player. Holy is now requesting a video recording.

   OP, I can see you're active, I am highly asking for your utmost cooperation here as the pace with Shuffle itself is rather quick and, dare I say, more advanced compared to what your side provide. I can't proceed without the points I am asking you: your betting history, severals of it, the most recent and closest to that bet is ok, though if you want to throw a wider range by giving much more sample, I'll really appreciate it.

I really need that to verify both sides version, so your kind cooperation and your wise decision to ignore one or two post will be highly appreciated.

[p.s.: if it's not too much, please send me a video recording, privately through gdrive is fine, alongside with the screenshots of those betting history]

edit - The player replied.

I've sent you the requested video via PM.

That said, I still don't fully understand the necessity of this, given that the allegation has always been related to the event itself (integrity/match fixing), not my account or betting behavior.

From my perspective, the responsibility should be on Shuffle to prove that there was actually an integrity issue with the match. So far, no such evidence has been presented.

Nonetheless, I've cooperated and provided what you asked for so you can review both sides properly.

[shasan]

You have posted against the negative trust of holydarkness. But have you posted in the same way of notblox1 who have provided negative trust to you in 2024. Anyway, I have gone through several comments of you, nutildah, Holydarkness and many more people but the way your are talking is not the perfect way. When you receive negative trust you should convice with a good manner to the person who gave negative trust but ypur way totally opposite.

[Rating Place]

You have posted against the negative trust of holydarkness. But have you posted in the same way of notblox1 who have provided negative trust to you in 2024. Anyway, I have gone through several comments of you, nutildah, Holydarkness and many more people but the way your are talking is not the perfect way. When you receive negative trust you should convice with a good manner to the person who gave negative trust but ypur way totally opposite.

notblox retaliated with negative trust. He said I’m going to teach you a lesson and gave me negative trust. I just let it go. Holy is doing it for a different reason. He’s very dishonest and has ruled for every sportsbook the last 2 years when there’s a flag. He wants to discredit my voice since I back players in scam accusations. Getting players paid is important to me.

Sure, I should have gone about it in a different way. I did an awful job of presenting my case. This doesn’t change my mind in that holy is a very dishonest person and what he’s doing in scam accusations should be criminal. The negative trust had nothing to do with trust. I don’t deal financially with anyone and this isn’t changing.

It would be futile to work with holy to resolve the trust given.

[holydarkness]

You have posted against the negative trust of holydarkness. But have you posted in the same way of notblox1 who have provided negative trust to you in 2024. Anyway, I have gone through several comments of you, nutildah, Holydarkness and many more people but the way your are talking is not the perfect way. When you receive negative trust you should convice with a good manner to the person who gave negative trust but ypur way totally opposite.

notblox retaliated with negative trust. He said I’m going to teach you a lesson and gave me negative trust. I just let it go. Holy is doing it for a different reason. He’s very dishonest and has ruled for every sportsbook the last 2 years when there’s a flag. He wants to discredit my voice since I back players in scam accusations. Getting players paid is important to me.

Sure, I should have gone about it in a different way. I did an awful job of presenting my case. This doesn’t change my mind in that holy is a very dishonest person and what he’s doing in scam accusations should be criminal. The negative trust had nothing to do with trust. I don’t deal financially with anyone and this isn’t changing.

It would be futile to work with holy to resolve the trust given.

Just because I'm a bit bored, I'll take the bait.

Like I said here, you want them to be changed to neutral? Prove and show the public what you said I said on 27th June 2025. That point itself is enough [and there are abundant others, if you want us to peel them one by one by one like an opaque solid onion] to prove who want to descredit whose voice.

For easier view for those who doesn't follow and/or too lazy to read the ref link I mention and the root of it:

Referenced post:

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.

Let's start with small baby step: What did I wrote on 27th June 2025? You made a statement that I wrote something that both my post history and bitlist archiver clearly show wasn't there. Is this not word-twisting from your side? No need for many words. Just a yes, admitting you twist words, or a no, and show us that I did wrote what you said I wrote.

The post in question:

[...]
Part Three

But there is a bigger, year-long pattern here.
This disagreement is not limited to the XYes case. For over a year I have consistently argued that when a player wins fair bets, the sportsbook owes him both his deposit and his full winnings.
holydarkness has repeatedly taken the opposite position, saying the book is within its rights to void the winnings and only return the deposit. His exact words in the XYes thread (June 27, 2025):
“LOL. The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. ... They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. ... If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.”

holydarkness said what in 27th June 2025?

After you address that, maybe we can visit point number 1 that'll be the ultimate key of this long standing cat-and-mouse that goes across many threads and you keep use as your ultimate weapon: you took the bait, you entered a casual agreement with me to escrow 1,560,000 USD and I'll give abundant explanation of how casino and provider dynamic works. Remember, you've entered the agreement. The reason why a thread that will become a base reference for a flag for your breach of casual [at the very least, and written, if we see it from an angle] agreement is because you don't worth my time.

The agreement is still there and bind us both, though. Soon, when you keep failing in escrowing the agreed number and I am tired of waiting, I'll raise the flag of your gross violation of our contract.

[Rating Place]

I’ll get the quotes later so that you don’t complain about the paraphrasing. You agreed with XYes. 3 different people made statements such as that you were new to sports gambling. They said that you didn’t know what you are doing and just believe sportsbooks when they are obviously lying.

Posters kept complaining and XYes changed their mind and paid. The players complaining overturned your recommendation. Now you want to take the credit when all you were was the messenger stating that XYes would pay.

Now you want to create a fake no evidence flag. I never agreed to a $1.5 million bet where you changed the terms of the disagreement. You tried to sneak in things I never said. Then you said I took the bait. You just proved your negative trust was just in retaliation for disagreements.

[nutildah]

I’ll get the quotes later so that you don’t complain about the paraphrasing.

Here, allow me:

LOL.
The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone.

So, you quoted the wrong person & have been attributing their words to HD in an attempt to prove your point. This is a microcosm of the problem you present to the forum: your assumptions are frequently unfounded & not rooted in any tangible reality. Thus, its not a good idea for anyone to take you seriously, to the point where its easy to imagine how you could cost people money if they took your unfounded advice. It's not a stretch to see how this kind of thing could be grounds for a red tag.

[Rating Place]

Nutilda, just stop. That’s not the quote and you know it. I’ll get quotes when I get home on PC.  You do this all the time. You do a little research, become a know it all, then post something wrong.

[nutildah]

Nutilda, just stop. That’s not the quote and you know it. I’ll get quotes when I get home on PC.  You do this all the time. You do a little research, become a know it all, then post something wrong.

holydarkness has repeatedly taken the opposite position, saying the book is within its rights to void the winnings and only return the deposit. His exact words in the XYes thread (June 27, 2025):
“LOL. The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. ... They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. ... If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.”

LOL.
The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. You guys were flagged by Betby, and the casino had to take action. They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. So, where did the scam happen? Their TOS already covered that they do not allow arbitrage betting. They are now paying as a gesture of goodwill and nothing else. If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.

[Rating Place]

Nutilda, just stop. That’s not the quote and you know it. I’ll get quotes when I get home on PC.  You do this all the time. You do a little research, become a know it all, then post something wrong.

holydarkness has repeatedly taken the opposite position, saying the book is within its rights to void the winnings and only return the deposit. His exact words in the XYes thread (June 27, 2025):
“LOL. The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. ... They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. ... If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.”

LOL.
The casino is within its rights. They did not scam anyone. You guys were flagged by Betby, and the casino had to take action. They voided the winnings and returned the deposit. It could be considered a scam if they had confiscated the deposit as well. So, where did the scam happen? Their TOS already covered that they do not allow arbitrage betting. They are now paying as a gesture of goodwill and nothing else. If they do not pay, no one can do anything because they are within their rights.

Nutilda, how many times have you followed me around in the last week. I make a post and you're sure to follow. Let me get the quotes. It was both God of Thunder and holy.

[yahoo62278]

Why is this thread still alive? Rating place isn't going to shut up, holydarkness isn't going to change the tag. Think locking the thread and moving on is the move now. Doesn't make sense to keep going with off topic shit and little jabs at each other.

[nutildah]

Nutilda, how many times have you followed me around in the last week. I make a post and you're sure to follow. Let me get the quotes. It was both God of Thunder and holy.

You're missing the point: because of the position you've decided to put yourself in, your inability to admit when you're wrong renders you an untrustworthy person de facto. It could be costly to assume you know what you're talking about when in fact you often have no clue. You just proved this yet again.

You should apologize to HD, accept the fact he doesn't trust you, and stop attacking him with this nonsense. And it really is fucking nonsense man.

Why is this thread still alive? Rating place isn't going to shut up, holydarkness isn't going to change the tag. Think locking the thread and moving on is the move now. Doesn't make sense to keep going with off topic shit and little jabs at each other.

Because it wouldn't be right to let Ratings Place get away with lies unchallenged. He can whine all he wants but if we should draw a line at getting away with lies.

[Rating Place]

Nutilda, how many times have you followed me around in the last week. I make a post and you're sure to follow. Let me get the quotes. It was both God of Thunder and holy.

You're missing the point: because of the position you've decided to put yourself in, your inability to admit when you're wrong renders you an untrustworthy person de facto. It could be costly to assume you know what you're talking about when in fact you often have no clue. You just proved this yet again.

You should apologize to HD, accept the fact he doesn't trust you, and stop attacking him with this nonsense. And it really is fucking nonsense man.

I'm not wrong. You are wrong in posting the wrong quotes.

Just noticed, you started following my posts in 2025.

I'm looking at XYes cases. https:
//bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5545943.100


holy

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.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5545943.75%3Bwap

flexie80

@holydarkness

If you are so much defending the books for consicating for value betting.......

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........

edit- doing my best adding now. Will make sure of order later. I'll keep adding for now.

[nutildah]

I'm not wrong. You are wrong in posting the wrong quotes.

How about this? Don't post anything until you find the right quote... Its not impossible to search for. Here's a good start:

https://bitlist.co/search

[Rating Place]

I'm not wrong. You are wrong in posting the wrong quotes.

How about this? Don't post anything until you find the right quote... Its not impossible to search for. Here's a good start:

https://bitlist.co/search

Just STOP. I'll post quotes. Don't you have anything better to do than follow me for the last year. 13 direct follows in this thread alone.

again, holy agrees with XYes

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.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5545943.75%3Bwap

[Kazkaz27]

Rating Place, notice when Holy was caught red handed with his shady tactics abusing the trust system Nut was no where to be found.

I just find that funny.

Nut is notorious for sticking up for the status quo. He defends it by throwing shade wherever doubt can fester, while staying silent when light is shone on the system’s flaws and his cronies’ abuse of that trusted system.

[Rating Place]

Holy started his own thread to ask questions. When he didn’t like the answer, he deleted the answer. Holy can post here if he wants answers.

Holy just deleted my reply to him on Shuffle. There was a case that holy ruled binding today for $30k. The book accused the player of match fixing.

Not one person in the thread said the match was fixed. No governing bodies or law enforcement are looking at the case. Game flow and box scores show it wasn’t fixed

Holy ruled for the sportsbook.

[holydarkness]

And it is under this basis that you goes into SA, advocating yourself as taking player's side, and that casino has to pay despite the flag, of which when they won't, for a reason that's been made known to you, that they'll have to pay from their pocket or from percentage shared with the provider, you peer-pressure the casino?

No, the casino does not have to pay. Sometimes the fees are flat fees. Sometimes the RS contract has nothing to do with whether a player is flagged or not. The reps are confusing you when they say there is nothing they can do.

Do you think Betby is making the decision for all 70 crypto books when they all have different rules and ToS?

If a player wins his bet, he should be paid. You say the book doesn’t have to pay for warning flags.

I do say that, because the casino [sportsbook provider] has to follow the warning flag. You do not believe that? You believe that the casino can just ignore the flag?

If yes, what stakes are you willing to enter for me to prove you wrong [given you have no reputation to be staked here]? I stake my reputation as DT and entire reputation of my existence here, I will cease to exist, if I am wrong. If I can prove that casino has to follow provider's flag, though... 1,560,000 USD a good enough number to show that you're a man with vast knowledge of the sportbetting dynamic? Previously we goes back and forth between 1,560,000 USD, so let's seal it here. Is this good? I can prove to the overseers here that, in many cases, casino has to follow?

If no, then please explain very clearly, yet shortly, why you say as above and parading all over the SA, disrupting mediation with those propaganda.

Yes or no?

[Rating Place]

baba20 on the fixed match.

I have never seen anything like this in my life. Shuffle's 'evidence' was never released because it simply does not exist. Innocent people are not supposed to prove their innocence, yet OP was interrogated endlessly, asked to provide everything about his life, his account, his betting history, while Shuffle provided ZERO. Not a single sports provider flag, not a single report, not a single governing body statement, not any "IP" that prooves someone used his acc, shuffle should have all this evidences from his account. nothing. NOTHING. And yet the OP is the one being put on trial?

Come on holydarkness, how much did Tim or Noah pay you to 'decide' this mediation? Because that's exactly what this looks like. They couldn´t even come here to defend themselves because they know they don´t have any valid argument, pathetic.

And let's talk about your mediation being completely invalid and garbage. You couldn't even follow the basic terms of the agreement that OP wrote. OP allowed Shuffle to submit evidence related to the integrity of the specific event and match fixing. What did Shuffle send you? His betting history. That's it. That's their 'evidence'. And you ran with it like it meant something. And kept asking for inumerous other things not related to anything that was agreed and worst, didn´t even any provide any evidence of any other issue related to his account.
This is not mediation. This is a joke. A bad one. Hahahaha come on, you could apply directly for Shuffle's advocate.

Now you can "nudge" Tim and get a beer to celebrate.

Shuffle´s pocket exists, don´t place big sports bet there.

rohang before holy's ruling

What does player integrity have to do with the game result and how it played out ?

How can OP's bet be 'unfair'?

Was it made when the match was already live with wrong odds ? no
Was it made on erroneous markets ? no
Did it bypass limits allowed ? No indication yet
Did OP have info/connections to certain players ? No, innocent until guilty. This way any book can deny all big winnings by making  claims about player 'integrity'


Those are the things i can think of by which anyone's sport bet can be called 'unfair'

[holydarkness]

baba20 on the fixed match.

I have never seen anything like this in my life. Shuffle's 'evidence' was never released because it simply does not exist. Innocent people are not supposed to prove their innocence, yet OP was interrogated endlessly, asked to provide everything about his life, his account, his betting history, while Shuffle provided ZERO. Not a single sports provider flag, not a single report, not a single governing body statement, not any "IP" that prooves someone used his acc, shuffle should have all this evidences from his account. nothing. NOTHING. And yet the OP is the one being put on trial?

Come on holydarkness, how much did Tim or Noah pay you to 'decide' this mediation? Because that's exactly what this looks like. They couldn´t even come here to defend themselves because they know they don´t have any valid argument, pathetic.

And let's talk about your mediation being completely invalid and garbage. You couldn't even follow the basic terms of the agreement that OP wrote. OP allowed Shuffle to submit evidence related to the integrity of the specific event and match fixing. What did Shuffle send you? His betting history. That's it. That's their 'evidence'. And you ran with it like it meant something. And kept asking for inumerous other things not related to anything that was agreed and worst, didn´t even any provide any evidence of any other issue related to his account.
This is not mediation. This is a joke. A bad one. Hahahaha come on, you could apply directly for Shuffle's advocate.

Now you can "nudge" Tim and get a beer to celebrate.

Shuffle´s pocket exists, don´t place big sports bet there.

Yes or no, Joe. That's the only question you should focus yourself right now, regardless on this thread or its twin, if you really want to clear your name by creating this thread instead of playing smoke and mirror.

Yes or no. No need to bring other topic, that's for... discussion for other time [on other thread].

Bear in mind: I deliberately made it your twin thread so the purpose is clear: you locked the thread where I attempted to clear the matter you're so busy with these past few days: the negative feedback. These twins residing in Repu board, they're far more serious than her sister-board, SA. If you keep chasing tails and running and prancing, they'll see you like onion glass while we try to peel the sold opaque onion.

I'll advise you to give that simple but very impactful question an answer before all overseers see who you really are. Yes, we have a written contract and I'll show why casino can not ignore flag, or no, we don't have contract because you actually also know that many casino has to obey provider's flag, floowed by a very clear explanation why you peer pressuring [and you took pride in it] casinos to pay.