FORTUNEJACK.COM |Deposit 777 play with 1777 mBTC |Live Casino, Slots, Betting

[Hhampuz]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

[1714471102]

1714471102

[1714471102]

1714471102

[1714471102]

1714471102

[1714471102]

1714471102

[1714471102]

1714471102

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

I'm not quoting anyone out of context, go on my own thread and read what he wrote towards the end of page 2.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5304432.20

[SATWAT]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

I am new and have no right to talk about any thing but posting here just for salute to this person because I read few posts and these quotes now feeling serious headache but he is doing this all constantly without any problem great work from this person even all matter is already solved but he still want to do some more with few quotes really poor from him because if you are in gambling you have to be for all options just lurking and posting shit is never been solution for any thing.

[DarkStar_]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

[LEVSKI7]

Punters in the US took FanDuel to the cleaners after capitalising on a computer glitch that offered in-play odds of 750/1 on an NFL game. The Denver Broncos should have been priced at just 1/6 to beat the Oakland Raiders ahead of a 36-yard field goal, but the computer threw up astronomical odds instead. FanDuel, owned by Paddy Power Betfair, initially refused to pay out, but a disgruntled punter called Anthony Prince went public and the operator eventually relented after consulting with the state’s gambling regulators. Prince bet $110, so he scooped a tidy $82,000. “A 36-yard field goal has approximately an 85% chance of success, so the astronomical odds offered on something highly likely to occur was very obviously a pricing error,” said the firm. “These kinds of issues are rare, but they do happen. We want sports betting to be fun. So, this one’s on the house. We are paying out these erroneous tickets and wish the lucky customers well.” Read ESPN for more on this.

That should be the case, but the regulator must impose it by law

[DarkStar_]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this  

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start.  

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

[FortuneJack]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start. 

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards. 

[deadley]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start. 

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards. 

Do you know, how easily this voting can be manipulated by mulites? This is not the way to close the case by voting and it will be hurt you in future too in every dispute.

[FortuneJack]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start. 

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards. 

Do you know, how easily this voting can be manipulated by mulites? This is not the way to close the case by voting and it will be hurt you in future too in every dispute.

-
Not saying that the decision will be coming only taking the votes into consideration.

We will be summing things up all in all and say the final word in the end.

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this  

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start.  

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards.  

Yes, I was just clarifying a few things.

But most importantly, I added new information that I haven't shared before - which is that you were mostly telling me in the emails that you canceled my bet just because I did a partial cashout for around the same amount as my initial stake as your main reasoning. In other words, if I hadn't cashed anything out then this bet wouldn't have been canceled.

That is quite possibly the worst reason I ever heard for canceling a bet regardless of the odds, and I hope you will reconsider your decision.

And sure - I'll happily wait until the poll closes before a final decision will be made.

[Beparanf]

@epicchamp as a friendly advice, Just wait for FJ decision and don’t escalate more the issue. You don’t need to convince everyone here, Only FJ will be the one who will make the decision no matter what the majority of the community want. FJ is a reputable casino for how many years. I’m sure that they will compensate you no matter what happened since they are still entertaining your issue until now. But don’t expect that you will be compensate completely as you want since this an error bet and I know that you understand that FJ is a business which needs profit too.

IMHO, A 50% and above compensation is cool offer in case they decide to give you this chance.

[bitgolden]

If this was actually a technical error and betrader notified this to FJ during the period when odds got changed + around the time I partially cashed out (it was a 5-hour difference btw), then FJ would have voided it right then & there without any delays.

But the fact that they didn't and then claimed a change of odds as their only reasoning to cancel my bet 7 hours later and 2 hours before the match was about to start, proves this was not a "technical" error like they claim it was, and therefore the bet should never have been canceled in the 1st place - which means I deserve to win my bet in full.

I also don't understand how they can possible say it was a technical error as a reason to cancel my bet, when the same exact odds & swings happened across all bookies universally, yet none of them canceled this bet for their users due to any "technical" errors, as it should be.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter "how" it happened as long as it happened, they could have voided earlier or later but as long as they voided that means it was voided so there was no discussions of it. Fortunejack made their decision, they have used their TC to show that there was nothing illegal or a thing they didn't warn about that they suddenly did, it was all according to their rulebook.

As long as the match didn't start, and as long as you still have time to bet again on the same bet, they will always have the capability of cancelling any bet at all times. The thing they do not warn about is voiding after the bet, because if a bet is settled it is settled but if the thing you wagered on hasn't started, they can cancel it even 10 minutes it starts because all sportsbooks you know have that same rule that states they can cancel before the games start.

[EpicChamp]

Guys I just want you to understand something and say one last thing:

FortuneJack may only be able to void a bet if it was actually / an obvious technical error, but it really wasn't because it was a change of odds instead and that's exactly what they wrote to me in the email as well as their reasoning for canceling my bet.

If it was, they should have also done it right away instead of waiting 7-12 hours after I placed the bet & the odds changed to do it, and also not have voluntarily given me the option to cash out any amount or % I wanted if they knew about this technical error at the time if that was actually the case (I cashed out about ~4-5hours after his odds dropped, plenty of time to void before then if this was really a technical error).

Also if it was, they would have told me about this first thing in the email, and this bet would have been universally canceled across all other major bookies as further proof, which wasn't the case.

Therefore, my player dropping from 2.6 to 1.7 (or less) was not a technical error at all and it happens too many times to count without any issues, so a bet cannot be canceled because of that. Especially considering there have been far more extreme cases than mine with much larger differences in the past and bets didn't get canceled due to that either. And if my bet wasn't canceled that day, this would have been a regular win because the player who I bet on won the match.

That's all I'm trying to say and get you guys to understand, because I don't think it's fair for FJ to claim that this was a technical error when it really wasn't and all evidence about what happened on that day goes against that idea. (and even if it was, the bet should still not have been canceled - but that can be another debate of its own and has been discussed on here and in my own thread already)

P.S. If it was a clear & obvious technical error where he was posted at 5.0+ and then dropped to <1.7 then I would have known right away & totally get why they claim it to be a technical error and I wouldn't be arguing about this at all, but in my case he was always placed between the competitive range of 1.3-3.0 where upsets happen all the time and there is never really an "obvious" or clear favorite - especially at the challenger level where upsets are very common and happen frequently (those who follow & know about tennis would know this). There are also many reasons as to why it would make perfect sense for his opponent to have been the favorite in this match to begin with as well.

[tigron9]

Although I'm new here, I agree with EpicChamp also. It doesn't matter if he cashed out anything the day before or not, the bet should not have been canceled and if he chose the right player then he should win the full bet. I personally never had any bet canceled before just cuz odds changed, so I don't see why it was done against him. Just my 2cents

[Hhampuz]

Although I'm new here, I agree with EpicChamp also. It doesn't matter if he cashed out anything the day before or not, the bet should not have been canceled and if he chose the right player then he should win the full bet. I personally never had any bet canceled before just cuz odds changed, so I don't see why it was done against him. Just my 2cents

Why would your anecdotes matter in any way with this? And it's funny that you say that the bet shouldn't have been canceled (many hours before the match even started).

Let's play with the idea that this exact same scenario happened again BUT instead the player EpicChamp placed his bet on lost - would he be all good with FJ canceling the bet then? I'd most certainly think so and none of this would have ever happened. Opportunists will find opportunities.

[tigron9]

Although I'm new here, I agree with EpicChamp also. It doesn't matter if he cashed out anything the day before or not, the bet should not have been canceled and if he chose the right player then he should win the full bet. I personally never had any bet canceled before just cuz odds changed, so I don't see why it was done against him. Just my 2cents

Why would your anecdotes matter in any way with this? And it's funny that you say that the bet shouldn't have been canceled (many hours before the match even started).

Let's play with the idea that this exact same scenario happened again BUT instead the player EpicChamp placed his bet on lost - would he be all good with FJ canceling the bet then? I'd most certainly think so and none of this would have ever happened. Opportunists will find opportunities.

Then he should have 100% lost it, doesn't matter what he thinks at that point and there's 0 arguments for him. He did a partial cashout the day before and fully risked the remainder amount to be played out regardless what the outcome of the match is, accepting the risk of a loss if his player loses just like any other bet. The point is they shouldn't be canceling bets for no reason if a match gets played in full from start to finish, or it creates a huge mess like this when it can be easily avoided. Not canceling the bet would make everything more simple and as it should be with 1 clear outcome. If he wins then he wins and if not then he loses it, that's it. No in between. This is how it should always be.

I hope OP gets his full winning, I know I'd be pretty pissed if this happened to me

[Bitinity]

I just received another 40x + 1x "bonus appetit."
Challenge accepted! Last time I could only salvage 1.7 mBTC in the end, lol.

I'm curious what is this "bonus appetit", I checked my email but I do not receive this offer. The bonus I got yesterday is 100 freespins bonus with 10x wagering requirement. It will start in the next few hours (the first 25 fs), lets see if I can make something from this bonus. My last 100 fs bonus gave me nothing as I'm failed to complete the wagering requirement. Thanks FJ for giving free bonuses regularly although I'm not really active playing since long time ago.

[mu_enrico]

^It seems random, the good old "free" 5mBTC but you have to wager 40x, deposit 5mBTC and then wager 1x.
I think this kind of bonus is just for lol because wagering requirement 41x on slots is extremely difficult
No luck for me this time, but I like this bonus a lot!