Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem: [holy POV]

[Rating Place]

Short version. Holy posted a contract that was never presented before and said we had a binding contract. Give me some time.

Are you going to be defending your flag, or making a new accusation?  I don't need time, I'm not interacting with that flag as I am too involved.   I'm just giving you suggestions to disprove the flag - which is what this topic is about.  Make sure you link every claim and do not take things out of context - it can backfire.  

Defend the flag. Does this work?

As it seems Flag require non-self-moderated topic, where my original thread I made was self moderated to prevent derailment by Rating Place himself and others, and that the focus of the thread itself is to air everything and bury the hatchet, to clarify everything, yet Rating Place seemingly has no intention of it, where one of the thing that need to be clarified is about sportsbook provider and sportsbook platform [casino/bookie] dynamic, known as turnkey, where flag by provider are not meant to be treated as just flag, but something that a turnkey sportsbook has to obey...

Quote from: holydarkness on May 10, 2026, 02:11:09 PM
Ok, here we go.

So, actually Rating Place was right, in a way, I did changed the original agreement Holy changed the agreement. I never saw the one he said was binding and didn't agree to the first., because the original one was for me to simply show to a DT that a case was indeed made under the basis of provider's flag. But that's fine, using the original deals that he got so scared of would be like robbing a balloon from a baby. So, we entered a far more serious situation,

this is where Rating Place initially accept my call-out [of the new agreement]:

Quote from: Rating Place on April 19, 2026, 05:53:12 PM
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.

This is the contract:
Quote from: holydarkness on April 19, 2026, 07:27:23 PM
Now now, boy, don't try to twist words again, it's a simple statement, you asked for one sentence, and I give you exactly one. Knows that --I believe most agreed-- you've entered a written agreement with me  I never entered an agreement, following above reply.

The situation is simple: you accuse me of being clueless about how sportsbook and provider works. You brag about forcing sportsbook to pay both on-screen on your thread, or off-screen from PM and other methods. I raise a flag against you as you poses a risk of financial lost to members of our forum [the sportsbook] due to your confidence of your knowledge.

So I'll make it even more simple, since you're repetitively focusing on Xyes and BetPanda on this thread. This is the written agreement we've both entered as per your above reply:

"You, Rating Place, will escrow 1,560,000 USD, that will rightfully released and become holydarkness's upon holydarkness's capability to show proof that providers like betby do has direct influence and dictate outcomes on matches via flags because sportsbook like BetPanda or XYes follows their risk assessment."

No need to drag it. Simple "yes" or "no" will put us into binding agreement I never agreed. I didn't say yes where you'll escrow the fund no one is going to make a bet when only one side posts up and I'll proceed by flooding this thread with abundant supporting evidence.

With back-and-forth smoke-and-mirror deflection-and-evasion in between, [deliberately taking screenshot to show the post number and flow of conversation] we go into this casual agreement at the very least:



Or a written contract if we follow many english dictionaries' definition of the word.



The agreement has been made I never made an agreement, regardless that he tried to sneak away from it, and I have been waiting for Rating Place to escrow the fund so I can proceed with my own end of the deal. As it seemed he won't initiate, I'll be the one taking the first step. I never agreed to an agreement


Rating Place insist that in casino [sportsbook platform], a flag from a provider [sportsbook provider] is just a warning flag, that casino can just ignore, that ignoring will not come with some kind of retribution, because it is just a flag, and that the decision to pay or not is solely at Casinos' hand as the fund goes directly into their pocket.

Rating Place, this is Turn-Key Sportsbetting, Turnkey, this is  the guy I talked to you so often, who insist you don't exist and you don't bind casino and provider in unique dynamic:



I will add other description from my phone, [yes, I do deliberately browse with my phone to exaggerately show how easily retrievable that info is, if only one want to learn], complete with in-depth risk etc. but I'll pour it in the next post as this one already become a wall of text/image.

Point is: I've done my end of the deal, now Rating Place, I call you to honor our written agreement. Please contact me within 24 hours to get the address for the agreed amount or I will have to resort to flag of breach of written [or casual at the very least] agreement.

[extra explanation from chatGPT on #33] I also have DeepSeek version of it on my device, although it seemed redundant at this point

Where Rating Place wrote a rather contrary rebuttal that wasn't a rebuttal. I was showing you how Turnkey solutions work, that he kept refusing to show the prompt he gave to the AI despite multiple encouragement,


From this point down I'm showing AI definitions. This isn't a rebuttal of his bet. I didn't agree. He wanted to bet proof of something and I changed the topic to Turnkey.
Quote from: Rating Place on May 13, 2026, 12:33:36 AM
When a turnkey provider flags a player for "value play," they are notifying the sportsbook operator that the player is consistently identifying and betting on odds that are priced incorrectly, representing a long-term risk to the house’s profit margins.
The decision-making process for payouts in this scenario follows a specific hierarchy:
1. The Settlement Decision (The Provider)
The provider’s role is to determine if the bet itself is valid based on the event outcome.
• Automatic Payout: If the game ends and the bet wins, the provider’s software automatically settles the bet as a "win" and credits the player's account balance.
• The Exception: If the "value" was actually a technical error (e.g., a "palpable error" where odds were inverted or a decimal was misplaced), the provider will flag it and often recommend the bet be voided, meaning the stake is returned but winnings are not paid.
2. The Cashier Decision (The Operator)
Once winnings are in the account, the operator (the brand name) has the final authority over the actual money and the player relationship.
• The Power to Pay: The provider provides the data and the flag, but the operator's internal risk team makes the final call on whether to approve a withdrawal.
• Account Actions: If the provider identifies a "value bettor," the operator will often pay out the current winnings to avoid legal or PR issues but will simultaneously "limit" or "guts" the account (restricting the player to very small maximum bet amounts in the future).
3. The Final Authority (The Regulator)
Ultimately, an operator cannot refuse to pay a winner simply because the player is "too smart."
• Legality of Skill: In most regulated jurisdictions, finding "value" is considered part of the game. Unless the operator can prove a violation of the rules (like fraud or collusion), they are generally legally required to pay for bets they accepted.
• The Dispute Process: If an operator refuses to release funds based solely on a player being a "value bettor," the player can escalate the issue to the governing Gaming Commission. Regulators often rule in favor of the player if the operator simply failed to price their odds correctly.
———————-

Yes, several other major companies provide turnkey solutions. While Kambi and Betby are two of the most prominent, the industry has several other "heavyweights" that offer similar "business-in-a-box" technology.
These providers are typically categorized by their "odds-making" style and the level of control they give the operator.
Major Turnkey & Odds Providers
• Sportradar (MTS/Oren): Originally a data company, they now offer a full platform called Oren. They are known for having the most extensive live data in the world. Their "Managed Trading Services" (MTS) handles all the odds and risk management for the operator.
• Genius Sports: Like Sportradar, they are a data giant that has moved into the platform space. They are the official data partner for the NFL, making them a top choice for sportsbooks that focus heavily on American football.
• OpenBet: This is the "heavy artillery" of the industry. They power some of the largest sportsbooks in the world (like DraftKings and FanDuel in various markets). They are built for massive scale—handling millions of bets simultaneously during events like the Super Bowl.
• EveryMatrix (OddsMatrix): They offer a highly modular "turnkey" system. An operator can take their entire package or just pick certain "modules," like their odds feed or their bonus system.
• BetConstruct: Known for having one of the widest varieties of sports and markets globally. They offer a very fast setup time and include "niche" markets like virtual sports and esports as part of their standard turnkey package.
• SOFTSWISS: A popular choice for operators who want a "modern" feel. They were among the first to fully integrate cryptocurrency betting into a professional turnkey sportsbook platform.
• Altenar: Often described as a "boutique" provider. They focus on being very flexible and "mobile-first," making them popular for operators in markets where most betting happens on smartphones rather than desktops.

And where other member jumped in and contribute to show the result by grok:

Quote from: T1HGO on May 21, 2026, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: holydarkness on May 21, 2026, 09:54:33 AM


And still waiting for that prompt you gave on your AI to give such a vast difference from mine [that I do with three different AI, four if we count-in Gemini Search, though I only showed one], it's on the other thread, please proceed. You hindering the resolution of addressing the real problem between us here by keep deflecting, though I've given my best to facilitate a thread that's deliberately moderated to keep the topic focused on all the points you have against me.



Hello. Not wanting to get involved in this too much, i would like to share my use of AI on this subject.

For context, i copied the exact same questions, word for word holydarkness asked.
And i used SuperGrok (paid version), using "Expert" mode. I made 2 chats. Here are the results.

Chat #1:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_f6339459-64f4-43a9-8cb8-d8114502bd4d?rid=102333e8-aa12-4e9e-8716-608647bc9162

Chat #2:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_5902efe5-2fb9-476c-adc4-532680e71b3c

Is AI reliable to ask and discuss things like this? Take your own conclusions from both chats.

I would like to see Rating Place's prompt tho. Not really sure what's there to hide, to keep deflecting.

I have to call the deadline of his side where he owed me 1,560,000 USD, where in no way I forgave his act and words and misleading statements and narratives smeared my reputation, nor make me whole.

This is just reference thread, and thus will ignored [I can't lock it either, lol]. Bring the discussion, real discussion, not derailment and smoke and mirror and deflection to the "original thread": Re: Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem: [holy POV]. This thread will be treated as "locked" by me and will not be addressed nor engaged, especially if the post is just pointless words.




"Again" is plural. It means that I got caught in another holy long debate.

[holydarkness]

I looked at the reference in your flag.  I wasn't able to instantly recognize the actual agreement or how he broke it.    If you could provide a concise point argument like this it would help.

1.  I suggested this (link to the exact posts)
2.  He agreed
3.  He broke terms

Otherwise, like I wrote to RP a while ago, only people who have had similar experiences to ours are still reading these threads.   If you can summarize for those of us who were not actively engaged, it would help us make a decision.   Or maybe I'm the only one who doesn't understand and that's fine and not unexpected.  

Ok, a very simplified version:

1. I suggested this, #92

Betby and XYes, LOL. Xyes told you they had an outdated license and you believed it. They showed you a fake license. The problem is these scam books are working you. They steal the winnings, you fight for deposit and say gesture of good will and look like a hero.

Irrelevant. BetPanda and XYes were mentioned here purely because you keep mentioning them. The point of our written agreement still persist:

You, Rating Place, will escrow 1,560,000 USD, that will righfully released and belong to me, holydarkness, upon my presentation and supporting evidences that prove that in several casinos, providers hold the decision-making and their flag is not mere instruction, it's an order that need to be followed, of where if the sportsbook refuse and decide to pay the player despite the flag, they will be paying [in layman terms] from their own pocket, or in more specific way, from the fund that should be paid to the provider, and the sportsbook absorbs the payment as their expense.

That's the written agreement. Please don't try to sneak out with word-twisting and other irrelevant things. It's been made abundanatly clear, with no room for misinterpretation unless one's IQ is on the same level of room temperature in Celcius. Overseers are watching and they're smart enough to see your pathetic attempt to weasel out.

Originally this, #83

Now now, boy, don't try to twist words again, it's a simple statement, you asked for one sentence, and I give you exactly one. Knows that --I believe most agreed-- you've entered a written agreement with me, following above reply.

The situation is simple: you accuse me of being clueless about how sportsbook and provider works. You brag about forcing sportsbook to pay both on-screen on your thread, or off-screen from PM and other methods. I raise a flag against you as you poses a risk of financial lost to members of our forum [the sportsbook] due to your confidence of your knowledge.

So I'll make it even more simple, since you're repetitively focusing on Xyes and BetPanda on this thread. This is the written agreement we've both entered as per your above reply:

"You, Rating Place, will escrow 1,560,000 USD, that will rightfully released and become holydarkness's upon holydarkness's capability to show proof that providers like betby do has direct influence and dictate outcomes on matches via flags because sportsbook like BetPanda or XYes follows their risk assessment."

No need to drag it. Simple "yes" or "no" will put us into binding agreement where you'll escrow the fund and I'll proceed by flooding this thread with abundant supporting evidence.

2. He agreed, #93

I took the bait again. There was no proof. Flags aren't proof. It's an educated AI guess. You never saw the bet slips. They most likely compare the bet with the Pinnacle line meaning there was an arb if wanted. Pinnacle (Bitcoin-Betting here) are the two arb friendly high limit books that are used the most. You didn't see bet slips from either. Pinnacle is independent.

3. I fulfill the terms: second part of #32, and all #33

4. Rating Place engaged in "disproving my explanation", "that providers like betby do has direct influence and dictate outcomes on matches via flags", by post #54

5. Another explained that the statement is true, that turnkey dynamic allows providerto have direct influence, proven by other member on #156

6. He broke terms by refusing to pay despite abundant explanation of what described in our contract.


Reference of idiom "took the bait": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579974.msg66634829#msg66634829
Reference that RP didn't back up the second it's made clear that he entered agreement, with the terms made and what he said suggested, explained, #95



Edit: writing all that with my morning coffee and half asleep. Fixing link.

[Rating Place]

Another guy making stuff up. That’s a discussion above. It has nothing to do with a contract that I didn’t see and you said was binding.

You think I agreed to escrowing $1.5m and you escrowing $0.

What are you trying to cover up?

[holydarkness]

Another guy making stuff up. That’s a discussion above. It has nothing to do with a contract that I didn’t see and you said was binding.

You think I agreed to escrowing $1.5m and you escrowing $0.

What are you trying to cover up?

You're saying that all this time, you made post without reading them? You agreed to it because you didn't read that the post just before you respond to an agreement, "I took the bait again"? One, "again" is not a plural, it's an adverb. Adverbs doesn't have any plurals. "Again", it means you did that before, and you did that again. And the fact that it's uttered after my proposition means you've agreed to my previous ones. The older one that I simply propose to show the flag on XYes, perhaps? Will that considered as double agreement, an again, a plural situation [the plural is the situation, not the adverb], and that means I doubled the amount? Wow.

Also... it come to my awareness that it become your newest strategy:



to lock your own thread when you lost an argument and got exposed, to reopen one of them again when you have nowhere to run and somewhere you can consider a Rant-ing Place?

[Rating Place]

I took the bait again is that I took the bait again in getting caught up in your arguments.. Look at what you are doing now. You go on forever.

I couldn’t read your final contract where you changed terms because you posted the edited contract and said it was binding.

You posted a new contract that I had never seen stating I had to escrow $1.5m and you $0. No one agrees to any contract stating that.. Just stop already.

I locked the thread because you won’t stop and Excimer recommended it.

Edit- you keep going and I’m going to show all the scams you’ve been pulling for the last two years. I don’t harass you, I try to stop your scams.

[holydarkness]

I took the bait again is that I took the bait again in getting caught up in your arguments.. Look at what you are doing now. You go on forever.

I couldn’t read your final contract where you changed terms because you posted the edited contract and said it was binding.

You posted a new contract that I had never seen stating I had to escrow $1.5m and you $0. No one agrees to any contract stating that.. Just stop already.

I locked the thread because you won’t stop and Excimer recommended it.

Edit- you keep going and I’m going to show all the scams you’ve been pulling for the last two years. I don’t harass you, I try to stop your scams.

It's no one's fault's but the Man, when a Man agreed to something because they didn't read the fineprint. Go to any legal institution when you're considered an adult, you signed to something, read it or not, it's your choice. The binding contract stand still. And no edit in sense of the original contract from me. If any, it's for grammar and spell-checking. The point stand still: I prove the turnkey provider model and you pay 1,560,000 USD upon my success in explaining a model you denied of existence before: that flag is just flag.

With turnkey, casino [sportsbook] can't just ignore that. Depending on the original arrangement and agreement, one casino can't just ignore provider's flag; not without paying from their pocket, and not without repercusion from provider upon repetitive and long-term "bypass".

You have my address, pay, or face the flag. Ironic isn't it? One that hold a casino and sportsbook rating thread, proved to be unaware that provider and sportsbook dynamic changed drastically. Open to questions of the fairness of your rating, given the creator of the rating didn't know how the latest system works.

[Rating Place]

I took the bait again is that I took the bait again in getting caught up in your arguments.. Look at what you are doing now. You go on forever.

I couldn’t read your final contract where you changed terms because you posted the edited contract and said it was binding.

You posted a new contract that I had never seen stating I had to escrow $1.5m and you $0. No one agrees to any contract stating that.. Just stop already.

I locked the thread because you won’t stop and Excimer recommended it.

Edit- you keep going and I’m going to show all the scams you’ve been pulling for the last two years. I don’t harass you, I try to stop your scams.

It's no one's fault's but the Man, when a Man agreed to something because they didn't read the fineprint. Go to any legal institution when you're considered an adult, you signed to something, read it or not, it's your choice. The binding contract stand still. And no edit in sense of the original contract from me. If any, it's for grammar and spell-checking. The point stand still: I prove the turnkey provider model and you pay 1,560,000 USD upon my success in explaining a model you denied of existence before: that flag is just flag.

With turnkey, casino [sportsbook] can't just ignore that. Depending on the original arrangement and agreement, one casino can't just ignore provider's flag; not without paying from their pocket, and not without repercusion from provider upon repetitive and long-term "bypass".

You have my address, pay, or face the flag. Ironic isn't it? One that hold a casino and sportsbook rating thread, proved to be unaware that provider and sportsbook dynamic changed drastically. Open to questions of the fairness of your rating, given the creator of the rating didn't know how the latest system works.

Just stop it.

Next week I start posting your scams. All the times you recommended the book can take winnings and forum pressure overturned your decision.

What are you trying to hide? You’ll find me in the thread that was already started about you.

False trust, false flags, you’re corrupt.

[holydarkness]

Just stop it. You mentioned nothing about Turnkey in terms of contract.

Next week I start posting your scams. All the times you recommended the book can take winnings and forum pressure overturned your decision.

What are you trying to hide? You’ll find me in the thread that was already started about you.

Of course I did not.

Where did you finished your elementary school and basic reading comprehension?

The "turnkey" method is the core here, it is "omitted" from you because you're so insistent about how old-school dynamic of sportsbook-provider, so rock-headedly think that "flag is just a flag", without ever, EVER, wanting to spare seconds to consult to Gemini [it's literally one google away, that's completed by Gemini's Google AI] to understand that the old school is now shifted to a more flexible and bookie-welcoming turnkey, where they can just turn-the-key and begin their sporstbook journey.

Of course "turnkey" is not the term of the contract, it's THE KEY of the contract. Remember: my aim here is to get you to be unbiased and neutral as possible, one that can't be achieved without you understanding turnkey model exist, no matter how many kind and gentle members of the forum hinted you that. So... there goes the flag, of your rock-headedneess and borderline NPD of I-know-it-all.

Again, I have zero expectation of having extra 1,560,000 USD in my bank account. But if that --and a flag-- is what's necessary to virtually and digitally slap you back to reality and update your database... then flag it is.

Unfortunately, you exhausted way too many excuses for a leeway before the flag turned real. So, here's the new offer: you declare that you know nothing about recent sportsbook dynamic and refrain yourself from Scam Accusation boards completely and indefinitely, for your outdated knowledge hinders resolvation progress, or pay the fine and feel free to roam and haunt SA.

[Rating Place]

This is the problem with you doing arbitration. You don’t know the first thing about sports gambling. I’ll get some quotes where other say that.

It’s the reason your cases get overturned.

[holydarkness]

This is the problem with you doing arbitration. You don’t know the first thing about sports gambling. I’ll get some quotes where other say that.

It’s the reason your cases get overturned.

With all due respect, press hard PAUSE on all of that. Stop deflecting and pour smoke and cast mirrors on your in your obscolensce. Just begin with Sportsbook's Turnkey Dynamic and admit your incompetence or pay the fine. Don't try to cast another smoke and mirror and derailment. Because, for real and for your own reputation here: the overseers knows what you exactly try to pull, and the more you dragged and tried to evade, the more damage on your self-infflicting image you garnered.

[Rating Place]

If a player is flagged for arbitrage betting, does that mean he he’s guilty of arbitrage betting?

Edit- if you have to do a search to figure out an answer, then you shouldn’t be involved in sports arbitration. Even with search, what’s your answer?

[holydarkness]

If a player is flagged for arbitrage betting, does that mean he he’s guilty of arbitrage betting?

Edit- if you have to do a search to figure out an answer, then you shouldn’t be involved in sports arbitration. Even with search, what’s your answer?

This will be the "last time" I address you, as you painted yourself in the best possible color for public to see, following above question.

No research, no google, no AI, here's my response, a rhetorical question for you to answer that: did you not learn at all about what the dynamic actually are? You kinda have like... four, perhaps six different threads talking about this. Is it not enough for you to understand that when player is flagged for arbitrage or whatever reason, his guilt or innocence doesn't matter. Casinos/sportsbooks need to obey the flag. Heavily depending on the agreement when the turnkey set, they can't just overrule the flag by provider.

Read. You have plenty of reading materials from many sources that should enough to penetrate your head about turnkey dynamic.

This is my last reply to the matter. If you still need help to understand turnkey, overruling, flags, and the consequences on the dynamics, DYOR. I can't help you past this.

[albon]

This will be the "last time" I address you, as you painted yourself in the best possible color for public to see, following above question.

No research, no google, no AI, here's my response, a rhetorical question for you to answer that: did you not learn at all about what the dynamic actually are? You kinda have like... four, perhaps six different threads talking about this. Is it not enough for you to understand that when player is flagged for arbitrage or whatever reason, his guilt or innocence doesn't matter. Casinos/sportsbooks need to obey the flag. Heavily depending on the agreement when the turnkey set, they can't just overrule the flag by provider.

Read. You have plenty of reading materials from many sources that should enough to penetrate your head about turnkey dynamic.

This is my last reply to the matter. If you still need help to understand turnkey, overruling, flags, and the consequences on the dynamics, DYOR. I can't help you past this.

This is what I was expecting from you, @holydarkness to bring it back to the main technical point because it drifted away from the technical point.

Also, the idea that the service provider has no influence at all over the platform doesn’t really match these systems. These casinos don’t have full control over decisions that go against provider Flags/Rules. So that part should be clear now.

As for the rest of the side arguments and personal accusations, I do not think they changed anything in the main point being discussed here.

Thanks for your time in clarifying your position.