Topic: BC.game asking me to lose intentionally, then confiscating funds - page 4. (Read 2096 times)

It shouldn't be, as you can see, with only supports from Coin_trader and me [this screenshot was taken before post above, before Get-Paid.com supported then withdrawn the support, and thus, return the situation back to the same state as earlier today] the flag shown as insufficient. I take a look into their profile in guest mode as well and no, there isn't any warning flag against them. Unless you're referring to that negative score on their profile, that now shows +3/=1/-1?

You need a support from 1 more member, if we for instance support it then the flag would be active.
We were reading what holydarkness said:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63144313

"I tried to delay this feedback as long as I can in hope that they'll deescalate the situation by addressing the concerns, but it gets piling instead of decreasing."

It's concerning for us as well, so we'd support the flag and it's now active.

We have asked them to look into this and sent them links to this and what holydarkness posted, we want them to succeed and for that we believe they should resolve the issues - we think they just grew which is why they don't use this forum too much, also many Crypto forums and groups are growing as well, so Bitcointalk might not be what it used to be, but still, the lack of response or resolving issues - this must be resolved, we agree with you on that.

UPDATE:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63085684


Someone posted this, please explain it, otherwise we can't support the flag.

But then why is there now this warning above the BC.game thread exactly after the moment Cointrader supported my flag?
It looks extremely likely his support did the job.

Uhh... no, you're raising a flag for violation of written contract [type-3], you need 3 DT supports for that. Currently there are two DTs supporting it [Coin_trader and me], assuming no one opposes it, you'll need at least one more support from a DT to activate it.

Flag supported. Once again, really shameful what they did to you. Voiding bets on MLB is a special level of misery.

Thanks guys, I see the flag is already supported enough to get a big warning message above the official BC.game thread. I hope this wakes them up, and if not, I hope this warns possible future customers.

I initially was hesitant to leave a feedback, but the amount of complaint raised against them was quite worrying, not to mention that my invitations to get their sides on those cases turned to deaf ears, so I thought it'll be better to warn the community for the time being, to proceed playing on their site with some wisdom

Supported the flag too since BC acknowledged your case yet they are still silent even though are online few days ago. I believe they are intentionally ignoring most of their cases here since their reputation is still not affected even with their silence.

I just hope that they will notice this flag support. I’m thinking of leaving negative feedback but I just want them to reply first here to get their side. For the meantime, I support this flag since I really didn’t like their silence on this blatant unethical method of support just to hold the profit of OP. Will remove the support once they reply a convincing explanation that is long overdue.

Simplified DT [Default Trust] are list of people whose judgment and views of many aspects are considered as... "trusted" by the forum. If you see that score next to each username, the +0/ =0 /-0, some shows +4 and some shows -5, that's because a DT leave a feedback on that user's trust score, either a positive, neutral, or negative. +4 means 4 DT leave a positive feedback on them, =3 means 3 DT leave neutral feedback on them, -5 means 5 DT, and so on.

If a non-DT leave a feedback, their feedback won't show by default and won't reflect on their trust score, though it's still accessible through "show ratings" below the "untrusted feedback" part of the trust page.

Similarly, a flag requires DT supports to be active. You can have dozens of users supporting it, and it still won't be active unless the DT supports requirements are met, as you can see in your own flag, where many people were supporting it, yet it's still not active due to insufficient support.

1 DT support for type-1 flag, and 3 DT supports for each type-2 and type-3 flag.

3 supports means there has to be 3 DTs more in total who supports or opposes it. So, suppose it's supported by 3 DTs and opposed by 1 DT, it still won't active, as the total who supports it were only 2 [unless it's opposed by a DT2 and supported by DT1, but let's not swim in that headache right now]. Similarly, if it's supported by several DTs and opposed by more DTs, it won't be active.

And no, a rank won't affect it, neither is merit. Someone can be a legendary with 10,000 merit [and let me throw +100 feedback, while we're at it] and he's probably still not a DT. There are other sytem and a whole different mechanism regarding DT, but that's the gist of it. If you have more questions about DT, feel free to ask.

As for the link, it's here: Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here!

Thanks. I have added the flag URL into the first post now.

What is a DT member? Any legendary status?

Can you tell me against where I can ask for flag support? I think somebody told me before but I completely forgot.

I use that horizontal line to indicate a separate reply [mostly, though it's also used for other purposes in some occasions] when addressing more than one post or user in single reply. Posting consecutive posts are not allowed by the forum rules.

Anyway, flag supported for the time being due to their silence and inaction although many means of communication has been exhausted. You're raising a type-3 flag, a violation of written contract, you'll need three DT supports, you'll need two more after mine to activate it.

p.s.: can you please add the link to your flag to your opening post? It'll help people taking action to the flag, so they don't have to browse the entire thread just to find it.

As a succesful bettor, you must know that to remain profitable in the long run, it's vital to always have a few (at least 5) bookies open at the same time to be ready to grab the best odds out of those 5 available to place your bet on. In this case BC.game was the best available for me. But not so far off that the odds can be considered wrong. Sometimes Pinnacle is the highest, sometimes another, sometimes another and sometimes another. It's just kind of random and business as usual, until they started voiding this bet.

And btw. if you want to help me (or rather help warning possible future customers of BC.game) then please support my flag. You can find the URL of it somewhere on this or the previous page in this topic.

Oh, I'm sorry, you are right. I did read your post but missed the whole part below the line in your post. I guess that line (why even use it?) fooled me into thinking the text below it was some sort of signature text and therefore I didn't think about reading it.\

But no, they never got in touch with me and I am pretty sure it won't happen anymore either.

I just happened to see this thread, and would like to join in as someone who has been betting at a very high level for over 15 years.

First of all, I have to say that any theories about the odds being "wrong" in an event like MLB are ridiculous. It is not a small market like the Bulgarian second basketball league, but a market that can absorb millions of dollars without any problems.

Therefore, it is a real mystery to me why the author of this thread made such a bet at any crypto casino, instead of for example at Pinnacle where a click is probably $50.000 and more.

What BC.game did is just an demonstration that anyone on the internet can open a casino, get a license for a few thousand dollars, invest in promos also few thousands, and in this way literally rip off anyone for any amount. There is absolutely no valid explanation for voiding someone's winning MLB, NBA, NFL, or any other big-market bet.

If I can help the author in any way, I would be very happy to do so, and the advice for the future is to play such bets at places like Pinnacle, Asian agents like Sportmarket, etc.

I had imagined that what Jannn was saying was not entirely reliable, which is why I had asked him for proof.


I'll keep an eye on these issues as well, for the moment I have left a neutral tag (which will not be displayed by default).

That's because they're not under CEG [casino e-gaming] , their license is under CIL [Curacao Interactive Licensing] , as shown on the bottom of their website, on the seal of validation



But yeah, I was waiting for Gekke's confirmation about no response from them, and support the flag or remain silence based on his answer, as well as planning to make a post consisting a list of open scam accusations against them to be used as a reference for their tag.

It'll be best to keep forum members informed about the risk they might face when playing on BC for the time being, a silence while their account got in trouble.

In this case I think there is a key point: Jannn says in another thread the following:


I have asked him to provide proof of this, if it is true that they display a fake licence, they deserve red tags from DT and probably a flag. There are several unresolved scam accusations, some not even addressed, lost cases at Casino Guru to which the displayed fake licence should be added. As I said in a thread on this I think their bonus policy would be illegal in regulated European gambling houses.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you know.

Umm...? That is actually what I asked you since three days ago and I've been waiting ypur answer to weighting my further step. They did not give me any follow ups and I was hoping they put an effort from your side. I take it that the silence goes on, although they were online couple of days ago and could reply for a case in AG only yesterday?

Update on my case:
Casino Guru team has produced their final ruling:
“ Dear earlypaco
After reviewing all the evidence received from both parties and discussing the case multiple times internally, we have concluded that your winnings should be honored in this case, minus the amount already awarded. We have therefore asked the casino to reconsider its decision regarding this matter, and currently await their reply.”

BC. Game hasn’t responded yet.
link to the whole story:
https://casino.guru/bc-game-casino-player-s-withdrawal-blocked-due-to

This is now a week ago. Did the BC.game representative not even want to come in here to discuss the case? I see he was online yesterday, but didn't post anything.