Topic: Sportsbet.io - A Case of Selective Withdrawal Approval and Dubious Practices - page 2. (Read 775 times)

I don't think Sportsbet gives bonuses for sports gambling. The other reasons aren't plausible because of the markets bet and dollar amount. No book cares about a $500 bettor in a major market. It's not going to draw attention.

My guess is banned jurisdiction but I could be wrong. The whole point is that no advantage was gained by the bets of the player. We have to start treating these cases as they would with a fiat book. Fiat and crypto have almost identical ToS. Books just apply the ToS differently. I play at crypto books because I don't want to be hassled and believe that the bitcoin price will rise. There's too much hassle going on with some of the crypto books.

Speaking in general manner, I would like to argue that the reason for multi acc is not strictly to circumvent limit [an action made by casinos where they only allows player to place bet to certain value at max] or abusing bonuses. There are numerous others. Evading ban, evading self-exclusion, manipulating gambling pattern detection [they made new account before their abusive gambling pattern triggered casino's flags], even bypassing limit [as in withdrawal limit, not the betting limit] imposed for an account.

Speaking specifically for this case, how do we know that this player does not abuse bonus or do anything detrimental?

And circling back to my original question, how do we figure motivation and intent? I assume user's narrative plays a big role in it, so it invites a question of how do we know they tell the truth and not hiding things, thus obscuring his intent and motivation?

we know there wasn’t ill intent since the only reason to multi-account is to circumvent limits and abuse bonuses. OP did neither.

I’ve seen cases at Betcoin where a player makes bets from a banned jurisdiction. Betcoin cancels winnings and returns the deposit.

Sportsbet has to stop stealing deposits on first time infractions. And if they claim double spend, then prove it instead of using ToS “ in our sole discretion”.


Here's the latest case changed from multi-account to double spend.

I am failed to understand how do you find a connection and similarities of this case with one from BC. How is this case similar with BC and which case is it? OP barely tell us the whole story, and evaded my attempt to breakdown his complaints. I personally think there are a lot more than meet the eyes with OP's case, let alone make a connection on similarities with cases with BC.

And how do you figure motivation and intent, if I may ask? How do we know if someone tell the whole truth and made his intent clear instead of hiding things and distort his intent?

Agree that I don’t know what happened other than intent. If the OP played from a banned jurisdiction at Betcoin and some others, then Betcoin would return his money.

Sportsbet can’t keep stealing money. Yesterday Sportsbet stole $500 from an another player claiming attempted double spend using a rule stating “ in our sole discretion”.

It was the same as the last one. At first they accused the player of multi-accounting and the changed to double spend using this rule.



Some of their rules in their ToS would be thrown out in court. Sportsbet took deposits again.

You can't possibly know what has happened here and what the player isn't telling us. There are so many questions left unanswered, and it seems he is only sharing what he wants to share. He said that he talked to Steve, but we don't know what about. Judging by his last post, it's got something to do with the United Kingdom. The UK is a restricted jurisdiction on Sportsbet.io. It begs the question, how did he register and play at the casino if he is from there? I am not saying Sportsbet decision is the right call, but I am saying there isn't enough information here to side with either party.

This process of fairness should not only apply to BC Game and Sportsbet it should be the same for all online gaming/casino websites. All of those businesses should always be conducting themselves with the utmost professionalism but what everybody has to accept is that their customers are willingly registering themselves and accepting the Terms and Conditions.

What that effectively means is the OP was not forced to register and play there, on the contrary he opted to deposit funds there in order to place bets. As of yet he has not even fully explained what the background to his allegation was therefore it would not be appropriate to jump to conclusions and state Sportsbet should pay the OP. Let the OP explain what happened first.

If we have seen the last of the OP before he provides detailed explanations about what he claims happened, in that scenario this allegation should not be taken seriously.

This case is the same as the one against BC.game. In both instances the players made bets in major sports leagues. Here it's NBA and EPL. There's no reason to multi-account. BC.game made the right decision and decided to pay the player. Sportsbet should do the same.

When trying to figure out any crime, look for the motivation and intent to commit a crime. The OP has no reason to commit a crime here and multi-account. The dollar amounts aren't circumventing limits and the lines are never advantageous at Sportsbet. Pay the player.

Sportsbet - give us one reason why a guy would multi-account betting $500 in major markets?

I have gone through the four posts you have made and noted there are far too many parts of the story/situation that could be elaborated on but you never did. If the story was presented in full, I think there would not have been some of the questions that come to mind now.

Did you use a VPN? Are you located in one part of the world but used an IP address for another to breach the Terms and Conditions you willingly accepted when you registered at Sportsbet?

You never explained your side of the story in full and now with the link for UK based (potential) customers, you have given the impression you are from the UK but it raised more questions because UK residents are not allowed to use the website.

I am not stating there is something untoward on his part but the OP should have mentioned that at the first opportunity in order to be open, clear, concise and honest. If he had presented a comprehensive review of the version of events as he saw them unfold questions about KYC, AML, VPN and his location would not need to asked as that information would already have been put out there.

The next question is why would the OP omit key information in his complaint?

That’s absolutely crazy to be holding your money for 5 weeks. Sportsbet and Stake are still the most intrusive by far with the longest delays. Proving source of funds is insane. Even when using the exact same third party for ID checks they are always getting declined by Stake but accepted at other books which makes no sense.

Not really.
Nitrobetting aka Nitrogensports held my money hostage for weeks many years ago. They asked me to verify and log in with a "unique IP", not even allowing to use my phone carrier IP, it was hilarious.
And even after I took care of absolutely everything they still let me wait around 5 weeks to finally let me withdraw.
Of course they had their baseless multi account question like "what is your connection to user 12345678", which was total nonsense.
So please don't name a site like nitro to be trustworthy, KYC free, and so on, because they are not.

Sure KYC might be annoying but sportsbet.io and stake both gave me 0 troubles regarding that, I verified right after registering and was never asked for anything again. Sure I am not a fan of stake overall, they deceived their players a lot with promises that were never upheld, but KYC was never an issue, just the empty promises.

Books that advertise the heaviest, Stake, 1xBet, Sportsbet, have become the worst for players. Lots of KYC, delays and outright left of winnings and deposits. They should spend more money on competent employees rather than all advertising.

I'd like to see that my wall of text --that's located above the post you replied to-- was not there just to be a decoration, and I find it rather hard for you to miss it by accident. May I ask why you don't bother to address any of them?

I have tried to access Sportsbet.io with a UK IP address and I get a notification on my screen that Sportsbet.io isn't available for users in the United Kingdom. There is also a button to redirect to Sportsbetio.uk.

I am confused about your case. What site did you initially register and play on? The main domain or the UK domain?
If you played on the main domain with a UK IP, how was that possible? Maybe Sportsbet didn't have this ban for UK players at the time. Did you use a VPN or some other way to mask your location?

About the case, have you done the KYC verification or did you refuse it?

UK Residents: Don’t Register With Sportsbetio.uk Before You Read This!
https://www.bettinginstitute.co.uk/how-to-bet/sportsbetio-uk-review/

Established in 2019, Sportsbet.io is an online gambling platform specializing in cryptocurrency betting, including Bitcoin. However, due to the UK Gambling Commission's concerns about cryptocurrencies potentially increasing the risks of money laundering and illegal activities, UK fans are redirected from Sportsbet.io to a different site.

UK Operations and Regulations:In the UK, gamblers are restricted to www.sportsbetio.uk and cannot access www.sportsbet.io. The UK site is operated by TGP Europe Ltd, which holds a UK operational license and is regulated by the UK Gambling Commission. TGP Europe is based in the Isle of Man, known for its offshore financial services.

Cryptocurrency and Market Focus:While Sportsbetio.uk avoids mentioning cryptocurrencies, aligning with stringent UK regulations, the international site, Sportsbet.io, advertises itself as a hub for cryptocurrency betting. It boasts of being "the freest betting platform worldwide," accepting currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple. Despite sponsoring Premier League football clubs, Sportsbet.io's marketing and operational strategies suggest that their primary target audience is not UK residents but likely bettors in Asian countries where regulations might be more permissive regarding cryptocurrency gambling.

While Sportsbet.io invests heavily in promotion, notably through sponsorship of Premier League football clubs, they seem to neglect crucial aspects of customer experience and loyalty. This contradiction is stark, considering the platform's heavy marketing outlay. It appears that despite their high visibility in the sports world, their actual commitment to user satisfaction and trust falls short.

I've learned that disgruntled users are starting to organize through social media to expose the questionable practices of Sportsbet.io. They are gathering information across various platforms including Reddit in the US, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Xiaohongshu in China, to share their negative experiences and warn potential users. This grassroots movement highlights a growing dissatisfaction with how Sportsbet.io handles its operations, particularly concerning the transparency and fairness of withdrawals and the use of KYC as a gatekeeping tool.

These actions by users reflect a deep-seated frustration and a drive to hold Sportsbet.io accountable, urging potential bettors to reconsider their choice of platform. The company's focus appears to be more on expansion and less on the quality of service provided to its existing user base, a strategy that might ultimately tarnish their reputation and undermine their promotional efforts.

I'd like to acknowledge Steve from Sportsbet.io for his efforts in addressing my withdrawal issues. While it's clear he has done what he can, unfortunately, he doesn't have the authority to overturn decisions made by the security and safety team. Thanks, Steve, for your assistance throughout this process. It's a tough situation, but your effort hasn't gone unnoticed.

Betcoin, Nitrobetting and ParlayPlus are pretty good as far as not asking for KYC. If they ask, you've done something wrong. Stake and Sportsbet are bad with KYC since innocent people seem to be getting caught in the net. Delays can be long. Maverick and Roobet are mandatory KYC. The rest are in the middle as far as sportsbooks go.

Not trying to defend SB [though I can see and hear myself that it awfully sounds like it] but, aren't these points extremely biased? I mean, if we break them down:


This is a common practice shared by any centralized crypto casino, not exclusively SportBet's. People are allowed to create an account and deposit without any prior requirement, and only later on, when the necessity arise, they're required to perform certain level KYC, as per what they've agreed on the ToS during sign up.

That's why it's actually [regardless how "anti-privacy" and counterintuitive it is] always advised to clear your KYC prior to play and/or deposit on any casino, to prevent inconvenient situation in the future.

There's no win for this argument. If the casino make it a requirement for their customer to perform KYC during sign up, prior to any game play or even a deposit, I can hear them screaming "this casino steals identity through enforced KYC!". If they don't require you to perform it upon your first, second, third, or twentieth play, and only requested that when they deemed it so, situation as quoted above occured.

Can you name me one or two casinos that does not require their customer to perform KYC at one point? Even a web3 casinos [decentralized casinos] will require KYC upon certain triggers.

If you don't want to perform any KYC, then go to a casino that doesn't require KYC. Here, there's a thread listing casinos who require KYC and those who are not.


Can you please be more clear on what you mean by them lacking a transparency in regulatory standing? It's there, at the bottom of their page, like where most casinos have it: the information and the seal of validation of their licensor.



And, "their gaming license is not recognized in major markets such as the UK", is this a fact? That UK major market does not recognize Curacao gaming license? Where can I validate this statement? If it's true, then many casinos out there are in a serious identity crisis, many of them are licensed by Curacao authorities. Anyway, how does it related [UK recognizing a license or not] to what a company sponsored?

Further, in order for me to get a better understanding of who you referred to and I can compare them myself with many casinos I know, can you please mention the names of those reputable platforms that list their executives and corporate structures transparently?


As what can be inferred on both points above, this is not exclusively applied to SportsBet. In relevance to that part of post I quoted above, any platform poses this risk. Literally any platform. Your brick and mortar bank even poses this risk. Why does SB being specifically and exclusively mentioned here?


I don't think I still need to cover this part, do I? I am more than willing, if people asked me to. Meanwhile, it'll be very very nice of you if you can address all of those points I raised above in reply to your own.

what was the outcome after talking to Steve?

Critical Warning: Consider These Risks Before Using Sportsbet.io

Review:

As a platform that has faced significant scrutiny, Sportsbet.io presents several red flags that potential users must be aware of before engaging with their services. My experience and extensive research have revealed alarming practices that raise questions about the platform's integrity and operations.

1. Misleading KYC Practices:
Sportsbet.io allows new users to deposit funds freely but restricts withdrawals following winnings, creating a misleading and frustrating experience. This is not an isolated incident but a recurring issue widely reported online. The platform's use of KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements is often arbitrary and serves as a pretext to withhold legitimate winnings. Their terms and conditions give them sweeping powers to request KYC and limit withdrawals at any time, akin to an authoritarian regime that applies rules selectively to benefit themselves. Despite assurances, many users continue to face hurdles even after completing KYC, leading to lost confidence in the security of their personal information.

2. Continued Risk Post-KYC:
Even after completing KYC, using Sportsbet.io comes with inherent risks. The platform's operations and the lack of transparency around its leadership and regulatory standing are concerning. Unlike reputable platforms that list their executives and corporate structure openly, Sportsbet.io's management remains a mystery, with no presence on professional networks like LinkedIn. Additionally, their gaming license is not recognized in major markets such as the UK, yet they sponsor Premier League football clubs, creating a false image of legitimacy.

3. A Cautionary Tale:
The recent collapse of FTX and the scandal surrounding its founder, SBF, serve as a stark reminder that no platform, regardless of its size or the surface credibility, is completely safe. Every user must weigh the risks carefully, recognizing that platforms like Sportsbet.io may operate in grey areas of regulation and customer protection.

Conclusion:
Potential users should approach Sportsbet.io with extreme caution. The practices observed and the difficulties many have faced suggest a pattern of behavior that prioritizes the platform's interests over user security and fair play.