SCAM ACCUSATION AGAINST THIS RIDICULOUS CASINO
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591974.0Long story short: I bet twice on esoccer, both bets won, once a bet of roughly €1000 to win €2200, another bet to win €3800 from €1000, leaving me with €5000. I deposited and played using BTC. I made a withdrawal, which took about thnree hours to hear back. In the meantime I asked support how quickly their withdrawals take, I expected them to be faster given it's a crypto casino. Alas, after three hours they came back to me telling me their were irregularities. "The playing pattern of this account is irregular and does not comply with the platform's terms of use."
I made two bets, both won. The customer winning does not comply with their terms of use. I made no bets on this game on another casino, I only played here. STAY AWAY. They don't respond well to criticism on here, which is.. a bad sign. I should have known. Still, getting screwed was not on my bingo card for today.
edit: They're offering to "either accept a refund of your deposit and close the matter" or "request an appeal according to the procedure" (which is appealing the decision from their Risk Control Team, which requires me giving full KYC. I chose the latter, even though it could take TWO WEEKS. To be continued I guess. Still, this is a warning to others.
Hi, we would like to clarify the facts of this case based on the information confirmed by our Operations and Risk Control teams.
The customer was newly registered on August 20 at 10:18 UTC and had no prior betting history. He deposited 0.01474 BTC, approximately €1,000 at the time of deposit, at 08:03 UTC.
He then immediately placed a bet on August 21 at 08:08 UTC, wagering his entire balance on an eSoccer fixture for 1st Half Over 0.5 at odds of 2.3, and won.
At 08:18 UTC, he placed a second €1,000 wager on the same eSoccer fixture, this time on Full Time Over 5.5 at odds of 3.8, and won that bet as well.
The customer then requested a withdrawal at 08:32 UTC, after the match had been resolved at 08:24 UTC.
The issue was not that the customer won. The issue was that the betting activity triggered a risk review. Based on the initial assessment provided by our Risk Control Department, the decision was made to temporarily freeze the withdrawal pending further investigation.
The initial risk assessment classified the activity as a Critical Integrity Violation / Exploitation Event.
The timeline of events—from deposit to wagering and then to an immediate cashout request within 29 minutes—was assessed as presenting a very high likelihood of potential insider knowledge, court-siding (latency exploitation), or match manipulation.
There were several key risk indicators identified during the assessment:
**Registration-to-Withdrawal Velocity:** The player moved from deposit to a full cashout request in just 29 minutes, with approximately €1,000 increasing to approximately €5,100, which did not follow what would normally be considered an organic gameplay lifecycle.
**Aggressive Staking Strategy:** The customer placed a 100% full-balance wager of approximately €1,000 on a low-liquidity live eSoccer market, 1st Half Over 0.5 at odds of 2.3, within five minutes of depositing. This type of activity indicates an unusually high level of confidence and is considered a potential indicator of latency exploitation or predetermined match outcomes.
**Correlated Re-investment:** The customer subsequently reinvested €1,000 into another high-odds market, Full Time Over 5.5 at odds of 3.8, on the exact same fixture. This pattern was considered a potential indicator that the player may have had real-time visibility into the match's scoring progression before the bookmaker's odds adjusted.
**eSoccer Market Vulnerability:** eSoccer streams rely on third-party video feeds that can experience delays of approximately 5–15 seconds relative to the actual console state. Latency arbitrage can exploit this window by placing bets after events have occurred but before the corresponding information is reflected in the sportsbook's feed.
Given the timeline of events and the specific market involved, we believe it was reasonable and necessary for us to follow our established risk-control protocols and procedures.
For comparison, if the same betting activity had occurred on a major market such as the English Premier League, where the integrity and liquidity characteristics are different, the bet would generally have been settled much more quickly.
It is also important to clarify that we have never threatened to confiscate the customer's funds.
Instead, we offered the customer two options: either accept a refund of the original deposit, with neither party admitting fault, or provide the required KYC documentation so that we could conduct a full review against known syndicates and potential exploiters in cooperation with our sportsbook provider.
The customer chose to proceed with the formal review.
At this stage, we are still waiting for full clearance from our sportsbook provider. If the provider confirms that there was no feed-latency issue and no abnormally high volume of bets on the same outcome for the event, the customer's winnings will be paid out by us accordingly.
Therefore, the situation should not be characterized as a case of a customer being denied payment simply because he won. The account was temporarily placed under review because the specific betting activity presented significant integrity and exploitation-related risk indicators, and the investigation is being conducted in accordance with our established procedures.
We respect the customer's right to question the decision and to pursue the formal review process. At the same time, we believe it is important that the circumstances and timeline of the case are understood accurately rather than being presented solely as a refusal to pay a winning customer.
