Degen. $601 in bets voided, deposit refunded. SCAM

[Mahdirakib]

If you wanted 100% impartiality (or as close to it as possible), why did you use the "Contest Hunters" website?
Did you know the Degen campaign manager is behind it?

'Little Mouse' is the owner of ContestHunters, but he doesn't take care of the dispute there. 'holydarkness' work as an independent mediator in ContestHunters. He is a trusted and reliable person in that case, which has been proven by his activity on the scam accusation board here over the past few years. I think you also respect the judgement of 'holydarkness' which he makes by looking into the facts and evidence.

Was it you that notified AB de Royse777 to create the thread to investigate if the negative tag was justified? If you did not, do you know who did? ~

It was 'Little Mouse' who asked him to look into the feedback.

[leparda]

Expediting the case resolution successful, as can be witnessed, the casino has replied on CH very recently. OP, can you confirm that you withdraw the initial deposit that they returned?

Yes, I received the deposit back even before filing the complaint. I did state that I accepted the casino's offer to return the deposit, but I also gave notice that I would subsequently open a dispute on the platforms known to me. In my view, this does not change the essence of the matter at all. I agreed to the return of a portion of my money, not to the casino's resolution of the issue. And importantly, I made this context clear right from the start in our correspondence.

[LoyceV]

We have intentionally refrained from responding in this thread while the matter is being handled through the Contest Hunters ADR process.

Who? I see a Scam Accusation on Bitcointalk (where you're advertising a signature campaign), not on a commercial third party website, and you decide not to respond here?

Let me quote the third party site without rewarding them with a backlink:

Error: Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL /disputes/13 from this server.

As soon as we were notified that a formal case had been opened against us

Do you even know what "formal" means? There's nothing formal about a commercial third party site!

we responded there and have been providing the mediator with our evidence and a full account of the events. We believe the ADR process is the appropriate place for disputes of this nature, where all evidence can be reviewed impartially, rather than conducting the case across multiple public platforms.

You're kidding, right? The spammers who earn from you and shoot the messenger instead of responding to the scam accusation are far from impartial:

a business who is spending $6,000 to $8,000 a month on their campaigns with this community

We have noticed a number of comments stating or implying that the player's deposits were taken.

Really? Please back up your claim by quoting those comments, because I don't see them (including the title).

The player was offered a refund of their deposit, accepted it, and successfully withdrew the funds.

Strongarming someone into accepting a partial payment doesn't make things right. Giving winners back only their deposit and keeping money from losers is not right.

Out of respect for the ongoing mediation, we will keep our detailed submissions within the ADR process and will abide by its outcome.

How much did you pay this "impartial" party since you came to this forum?

[Free Market Capitalist]

Let me quote the third party site without rewarding them with a backlink:

Error: Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL /disputes/13 from this server.

  I can access it.

Apart from that, I understand some of the points you are making but did you miss this?

ContestHunters are run by LM, yes, I think he and some of his friends [be it on the forum or on his personal life] build it and facilitate the platform with dispute resolution page. But, so far, he has not intervene with any of it and give me the freedom as much as I want to prove and piece evidences. Though I haven't ventured around the platform to see what it offers, I'd like to think that dispute department is a separate section, completely run by me, with LM's help to get me acquainted with a contact, suppose they're still not in mine.

You seem a lot more emotional than usual—not thick-skinned—.

[LoyceV]

I can access it.

I'm using Tor browser for this.

did you miss this?

I saw holydarkness' post, but still see no reason to move this topic to a third party site.

You seem a lot more emotional than usual—not thick-skinned—.

You're the one who's being paid by this site, not me. I don't have skin in the game. What's with the personal attack instead of addressing the scam accusation?

[Free Market Capitalist]

You're the one who's being paid by this site, not me. I don't have skin in the game. What's with the personal attack instead of addressing the scam accusation?

I am being paid by the site but not for much longer I think. It's not a personal attack, it's an observation, I would think the same if I was wearing another signature or not a signature at all.

You are not always thick-skinned and that's a fact, you also get winded up in some AI-related matters. Maybe that means you are human after all.

About the Scam Accusation, I think it is BS not to pay people their profits because they are value betting or whatever they are calling it. I made money playing poker for a long time precisely by value betting.

[yahoo62278]

About the Scam Accusation, I think it is BS not to pay people their profits because they are value betting or whatever they are calling it. I made money playing poker for a long time precisely by value betting.

It's 100% bullshit. They offer the bet, they took the money, they look for a way not to pay. This community has just accepted whatever a casino says without really pushing back. If a casino doesn't want a players business, pay them and close their account seems like the correct action.

As I have stated dozens of times in multiple threads, a decent number of accusations in this section are bs, but there are accusations that I deem proper. Value betting IMO is 1 of the accusations I've seen that I disagree with, but the community has accepted it so I haven't tagged casinos using this excuse as scam operations. Maybe that needs to change?

a business who is spending $6,000 to $8,000 a month on their campaigns with this community

Royse has only ever cared about his pocket, not the community.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It's 100% bullshit. They offer the bet, they took the money, they look for a way not to pay. This community has just accepted whatever a casino says without really pushing back. If a casino doesn't want a players business, pay them and close their account seems like the correct action.

And the fact is that even that—which is an unfair advantage for the house—is accepted in sports betting (if they detect that a player is winning a lot, they can close the account, but they still have to pay out whatever the player has won). At least in poker, it has never worked that way.

[holydarkness]

Expediting the case resolution successful, as can be witnessed, the casino has replied on CH very recently. OP, can you confirm that you withdraw the initial deposit that they returned?

Yes, I received the deposit back even before filing the complaint. I did state that I accepted the casino's offer to return the deposit, but I also gave notice that I would subsequently open a dispute on the platforms known to me. In my view, this does not change the essence of the matter at all. I agreed to the return of a portion of my money, not to the casino's resolution of the issue. And importantly, I made this context clear right from the start in our correspondence.

I will stop right here, before I spend my time reading their counter-evidence, cross-referencing things, and do all that I need to do to get a verdict on CH if your intention is to open dispute on the platforms [plural] that you know. I don't want to waste my time and risking a migraine to make a call that will only resulted in you moving to other ADR, then to other, then to other, until one says you're the right one.

So, if the verdict on ContestHunters will not be binding to you and you already planned to go into platforms known to you until you get a win, please spare me the time and say it right now before I scrutinize details given by Degen, so I can remove those evidence from my device and mark your case as rejected on CH, safe us all a lot of time and energy.

[leparda]

Expediting the case resolution successful, as can be witnessed, the casino has replied on CH very recently. OP, can you confirm that you withdraw the initial deposit that they returned?

Yes, I received the deposit back even before filing the complaint. I did state that I accepted the casino's offer to return the deposit, but I also gave notice that I would subsequently open a dispute on the platforms known to me. In my view, this does not change the essence of the matter at all. I agreed to the return of a portion of my money, not to the casino's resolution of the issue. And importantly, I made this context clear right from the start in our correspondence.

I will stop right here, before I spend my time reading their counter-evidence, cross-referencing things, and do all that I need to do to get a verdict on CH if your intention is to open dispute on the platforms [plural] that you know. I don't want to waste my time and risking a migraine to make a call that will only resulted in you moving to other ADR, then to other, then to other, until one says you're the right one.

So, if the verdict on ContestHunters will not be binding to you and you already planned to go into platforms known to you until you get a win, please spare me the time and say it right now before I scrutinize details given by Degen, so I can remove those evidence from my device and mark your case as rejected on CH, safe us all a lot of time and energy.

What I'm talking about is that I notified the casino that I would open a dispute on the platforms I know after processing my deposit. Which I did, writing in this section. I'm not saying I'm about to open multiple disputes. That makes no sense, of course. And you yourself recommended posting on ContestHunters in other similar complaints about this casino, which is what I did.

[holydarkness]

I will stop right here, before I spend my time reading their counter-evidence, cross-referencing things, and do all that I need to do to get a verdict on CH if your intention is to open dispute on the platforms [plural] that you know. I don't want to waste my time and risking a migraine to make a call that will only resulted in you moving to other ADR, then to other, then to other, until one says you're the right one.

So, if the verdict on ContestHunters will not be binding to you and you already planned to go into platforms known to you until you get a win, please spare me the time and say it right now before I scrutinize details given by Degen, so I can remove those evidence from my device and mark your case as rejected on CH, safe us all a lot of time and energy.

What I'm talking about is that I notified the casino that I would open a dispute on the platforms I know after processing my deposit. Which I did, writing in this section. I'm not saying I'm about to open multiple disputes. That makes no sense, of course. And you yourself recommended posting on ContestHunters in other similar complaints about this casino, which is what I did.

I see and duly noted.

This shall be the beginning of the binding mediation on CH, where the verdict shall be honored by all the parties involved. I'll begin reading and inspecting the materials they provided. Please wait a little.

[Rating Place]

So whatever lines we win on can be termed as 'weak' and they will easily confiscate both deposit +winnings ??

This is some absolute BS happening on these new sites.

We dont see these type of things happen ever on sites like stake,shuffle etc. No wonder they are the industry leaders now.

Pretty obvious these new books dont want to payout any winnings and just there to take in deposits. Disgusting behaviour

Actually... "sites like Stake, shuffle, etc." uhh, Stake doesn't respond to scam accusation on this forum anymore, so pretty much all of the complaint against them, it's "we've made a call, and everyone shall obey." This is especially true to another big industry-leader casino like Betcoin who dismisses cases with response that does not open to negotiation or a room to wiggle for a mutual-understanding, of which... arguably understandable from an industry leader casino like Betcoin who have one of the cleanest record on my list. They buit their reputation not only from being here for more than a decade, but also from being casino who can prove that they're the one being wronged and the player tried to cheat them.

But I observed other casino, that's on a speed-track to "industry leader casino" through big promo on the forum, also attempted to do the same method to dismiss matter, "You do this, we have evidence for it, no, it's not for debate, end of discussion," thinking that [I strongly assume] birthed from their thought that huge marketing presence on the forum only is enough to dismiss cases without providing their own counter evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

So... yeah, these type of things happen ever on big sites because they dismiss without bothering to convince the forum, due to their big name and long-standing reputation. Question is, do same benefit-of-doubt and taking-word-at-face-value applied the same to a relatively new casino just because they hold massive marketing promo and freebies on the forum? Hold sig. campaign managed by big name?

Sorry for going OOT, just showing that reputation and benefit of doubts should not be given just because they're industry leader [or hold many promos], it should be earned through time of cooperating with each complaint and being transparent... until their words can be taken for granted.

To be fair i havent seen the 'player bet on weak line' argument before, either from stake/shuffle or anyone else

Looks like a new betby thing maybe?

Perhaps the newer sites like degen etc dont have dedicated sports risk analysis/sports head honchos yet who have the knowledge and authority to over ride betby call

Now i think about it, its more likely to me its betby and casinos just going with it.
 

Weak line is the exact same thing as a value bet.

[Free Market Capitalist]

This shall be the beginning of the binding mediation on CH, where the verdict shall be honored by all the parties involved.

Ok, so now both parties have agreed to solve the matter in another mediation site, which is common practice not only on the forum but in general in gambling. I don't see any problem with that.

Weak line is the exact same thing as a value bet.

It's the same BS, just called something else.

[rohang]

To me its plain - IF there is a weak line(whatever the hell that may be), that is supplied by betby and the player has nothing to do with it.

Why are the players put at fault ? Betby should be the one to compensate whatever amounts the sites lose due to these 'weak lines'

[Rating Place]

To me its plain - IF there is a weak line(whatever the hell that may be), that is supplied by betby and the player has nothing to do with it.

Why are the players put at fault ? Betby should be the one to compensate whatever amounts the sites lose due to these 'weak lines'

I don’t think that Betby should be involved in any payment. If a sportsbook isn’t happy with the lines, they should just change providers. A weak line (value line or soft line) can be caused for multiple reasons. It could be a slow moving line and players make the bet before the line changes. Those are called steam players. All the book has to do is delay approving the bet. Many books do that. It can also be that the line is unique or opinionated.

I agree with you 100% in that the player isn’t at fault betting these lines.

[JollyGood]

'Little Mouse' is the owner of ContestHunters, but he doesn't take care of the dispute there. 'holydarkness' work as an independent mediator in ContestHunters. He is a trusted and reliable person in that case, which has been proven by his activity on the scam accusation board here over the past few years. I think you also respect the judgement of 'holydarkness' which he makes by looking into the facts and evidence.

My understanding is somewhat different to how you have presented it.

I appreciate him trying to expedite scam accusations to a conclusion by building relationships with online casino staff and also for relaying information between casinos and the claimants by acting a middle-man. If he is shown information/data by a casino and chooses to ask questions of the claimant or decides to remove himself from the equation as he has seen evidence he cannot elaborate on (but is in his opinion sufficient for him to no longer be involved) then that is all part of his attempts to help scam accusations reach some sort of conclusion.

If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.

This opens up various allegations as well as questions of possible interference, conflict of interest and much more. No claimant should be going down this route on the Contest Hunters website.  

It was 'Little Mouse' who asked him to look into the feedback.

I am glad to read this because AB de Royse777 was extremely vague when he stated he was "notified" about the negative tag.