Topic: Coinplay CONFISCATING 291mbtc of fair NBA winnings (Read 2196 times)

You know that's not the reason I made that statement.

You know that I was directly responding to what you said about me:


Trying to make it appear the way you are, when I was literally just responding to your bullshit claim is messed up.



As for the rest, just read Jollygoods post.  That's what I've been trying to explain to you this whole time.  This is not a complicated case so I'm not going to waste any more time going back and forth with your ridiculous and disingenuous arguments.

I already left negative feedback for Coinplay some time back (because of their whole conduct throughout the scam allegation) even though I am late posting in this thread, I wanted to highlight what you wrote because that is ultimately what forum members opinions most probably should be based on.

In the end there should be no serious debate about what did or did not take place between the OP and Coinplay because after AskGamblers made their ruling that road is now closed. Anyway, since both parties agreed to take their claim and counter-claim to AskGamblers the common sense outcome would be to accept their judgement otherwise why agree to let AskGamblers evaluate the allegation.

Coinplay have destroyed their reputation in this forum over a 0.291 BTC payout and the chances are they will never be able to repair the damage even if they return and pay the OP what he is owed. Will the flags and feedback be revised/removed by all those tagged?

I don't understand why you need to state something to prove your worth, do you need an approval?  None of us are unknown and nothing to prove or approve to each others.

This very post is about Coinplay, not about sportsbet.io, Stake.com, Rollbit, Duelbits, FortuneJack. What do you expect, to talk about all on this thread?

I did consider the response from the license provider.  I consider it bullshit.  In 5 + years I've never seen or even heard of curacao or a curacao master license helping a player or actually investigating. The only time I can think of anyone speaking up about any sort of dispute is when they defended 1xbit.  (1xbit was ultimately forced into bankruptcy after breifly having it overruled, which was when curacao made that statement.  



Yes.  You're defending coinplay.  You're doing it this very post.  By bringing up all the way OP could be guilty, or making it seem like the statement from their license holder somehow justifies anything despite the fact that coinplay agreed to use askgamblers.  Askgamblers ruled in favor of OP.  Coinplay didn't pay and just stopped posting.





I've participated in many scam accusation threads.  

I'm defending OP because of the way coinplay has handled the situation.

They agreed to use askgamblers.  Askgamblers ruled in favor of OP.  Coinplay didn't pay and just stopped posting.


Let me say that again:

They agreed to use askgamblers.

Askgamblers ruled in favor of OP.

Coinplay didn't pay and just stopped posting.

well, in what thread have we seen this kind of stuff?


The answer is quite simple:

in the 1xbit thread, they are the same way of operating, this strategy of returning the deposit when the player wins is a long-term scam strategy, when the customer loses all bets the casino is not telling the customer that they have detected cheating and that for this reason they will return the deposit, or am I wrong? Has anyone here ever seen a casino come here and say that their customer lost all their money in the casino but that the casino team detected cheating and for that reason they will return the entire deposit amount? that doesn't happen, it only happens when people win money at the casino. and this meaningless excuse that they can't show proof that the customer is cheating because it could expose the casino's investigative methods, honestly does anyone here still believe in this meaningless excuse?

when you have a case like that of OP? it's not the OP who should post proof, it's the casino (the accuser who should post proof to the public) and when the accuser doesn't want to post proof then he should pay everything the player won, that's quite simple, for that reason I support the flag and I advise people not to use this casino, it is unacceptable that a casino simply accuses a customer of cheating, and does not pay him his winnings and also does not want to post proof that led the casino to withhold the player's winnings. we cannot blindly trust the casino, today is OP's case, tomorrow will someone else have their account closed and why? the casino has detected cheating, but where is this proof? oh we just have to trust the word of the casino, so in 1 month we will have more similar cases

It's not that I am not aware. Of course I am aware but why don't you consider the response from the license providers too? That does not seems the OP is innocent. Or you are saying licensor are protecting their clients and risking their reputation for 100s of other casinos they provided license.

Do you really think I am defending a specific casino? Since you asked [not sure why] then let me ask the same. Don't you think you are defending the OP blindly? Defending him just because he posted something which looks like legit to you but truth is you and I can not prove if that is indeed legit. Haven't we seen such accusations all the time against other casinos? Common accusations:

Casino x banned my account
Casino x confiscated my deposit
Casino x not responding to my PMs
Casino x is a scam
Casino x is 1xbit
Casino x do not pay my winning.

The entire scan accusation filled with such type of threads but it seems all your focus is one defending OP and seeing a specific casino should go down to the hole.
Why?

In this case it's obvious that Coinplay doesn't want to allocate resources to resolve this, so everything that you've said is on point, except this:


I would say that she's defending the general process on how we treat scam accusations, not the casino itself. It's good to talk these things trough and have different opinions, it will help with other scam accusations later on.

A pass for what?  They agreed to use a third party to arbitrate.  Ruling was in favor of player.  

Consider the facts and then reconsider your stance.  

Player:
- Gives detailed explanation of situation.  Provides evidence.
- Gives site permission to share any evidence.
- Offers to go to arbitration, gives permission to site to share all info with third party.
- Result of arbitration in their favor.


Casino:
- Does not provide any details or even a specific accusation.
- Agrees to arbitration, loses.
- Still doesn't pay.
- Ghosts forum.
- Only been around for 6 months.
- Obvious ties to the longest running scam casino on the forum that is well known for freerolling players by making vague accusations against winners, seizing their profit, returning only their deposit and then going silent.


Why would you defend the casino?  And yes, that is what you're doing.

In that case, the betting site should have the valid proof against the users. But Coinplay has made their final decision by saying this to the mediator


Coinplay representative hasn't acted professionally. They haven't said anything about this issue after that. In the meantime, they used some Bitcointalk account to oppose flag. And there was suspicious activity on those accounts which has been pointed out by Ratimov.

Complete nonsense. This illiterate constantly promotes the fraudulent rules of the sites that have no legal value

A players balance does not belongs to the player always. When a player is earning the balance from manipulation, abusing terms, abusing bonus, fixing match, arbitraging that is not appreciated by any sportsbook then the balance is not his, even the deposit they made can be confiscated by the sportsbook according to their terms.

I will suggest you not give a pass to a player too when you do not know if he was manipulating you, hiding information from you. You have no way to verify anything except trusting him. In fact you and me have no way to verify anything presented by the sportsbook too.

I think we need to consider the level of experience a project representative have in the community. Stunna, Steve from sportsbet.iom Karl and some others know how the community works in terms of their marketing but these new casino / sportsbooks launching everyday all the time, do not have much idea about how to handle their PR on the forum. May be it's our failure but that does not mean they have intention to scam anyone especially when they are spending money on building a good reputation for their project.

To a legit player that didn't trigger the abuser matrix, yes.

But, if they triggered the abuser matrix, the balance is dissected, and whatever was the casinos money before, is back to being casinos money.

You have to understand that there are millions of forums, scripts and subs dedicated to scamming operators, who are bombarded with them on a daily basis, and dealing with each and every individual case takes resources, and you're either large enough to have those resources, or you go through the route of ignoring them.


Technically, the casino didn't earn any money on this if it was a full refund (house edge/vig included), the total revenue on that player account are now zero.


This is true. However, I think that there's more to this case then we see here, but there's no way in finding out that info without a Coinplay representative that would be more active than the current one, so we're just wasting our time arguing.  

I like how Stunna handled a confirmed fraude case:
That makes it clear they don't profit off it, and stops any accusations that they do it for the money.

I support OP. Coinplay is obviously a scam company, they cover up their seemingly fair trading plan by returning the principal and always ensuring profits. They first claimed that there were problems with betting on OP, and then said there were multiple accounts, which are ridiculous excuses. If there are odds in the bet, of course there will be risks relative to winning or losing. If OP loses the bet, nothing happens; if they win, various excuses will be used to refund your principal, which is common in some gambling fraud companies. What's the point of gambling if players can only get back their own capital every time they win? These gambling companies always look for players' problems without solving their own internal problems. Anyway, this platform is more disgusting than some unlicensed platforms. I am not specifically targeting anyone, but I have encountered similar situations before where they still give you trouble even when you place normal winning bets. Bet365, Stake and Pinnacle are where you should go - don't waste your time and money on these boring small platforms because even if you bet with them ,they won't provide live video viewing for you.

You mean if they really wanted to steal players money why did they only steal some and not all of it?

Because that's what scam casinos do.  It's called a freeroll.  ANd 1xbit is the best example of a site that does this on a regular basis.

They keep all of their losing players deposits + some of their winning players winnings.  

Players are less likely to create a public issue if the deposit is returned, even though they never had a chance to win.  I'm sure if it were more profitable, they wouldn't return player deposits, but it seems to be an effective strategy.

Returning players deposits and confiscating their winnings should always be a red flag - there are very few cases where doing so is the appropriate decision for a casino.  A players balance belongs to the player.  It doesn't matter how much they deposited.

Please do not ever give a casino a pass because they returned a deposit and only kept player winnings.



By even suggesting that a player having their balance taken minus their deposit is somehow acceptable or meaningful is, in fact, defending Coinplay.  


Your list should read:

#1. Coinplay and player had a dispute of players balance.  
#2. Coinplay and player agree to use third party.
#3. Third party rules against Coinplay.
#4. Coinplay still doesn't pay player and ghosts the forum.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. However, you had a choice not to respond if you wanted to. All point makes sense to me. I also noticed that OP aggressively shows anger when someone doesn't support him. I also criticized OP for being rude to SirJohnVonSlotty.


I didn't know you were Dutch. I thought you were from Switzerland, as once you responded to me and said you were allegedly Swiss! About making fun, I am not Dutch, and I am not here for long enough. So, I am unaware of this thing.

Some of the points I can remember so far [I don't have time to check what I said before and read before then quote them].

OP wanted to ignore when I asked him why he had 50 accounts with different sportsbook? He responded later though once I asked again and other few guys too.
OP had very similar problem with other none branded sportsbooks too but still he continues gambling with none branded sportsbooks with large amount of money. With a highly established sportsbook he would not have to face such issue if he was fair
OP use such a blackmailing words/sentences is like if you don't do this I will do that.
OP gets rude when someone is not speaking in his favour. His words against SirJohnVonSlotty was not nice while SirJohnVonSlotty didn't seems siding for either OP not Coinplay.
When licensor told something that was not in his favour he started to blame the licensor. If he was not going to accept the justification of the licensor then why did he wrote them. Now he makes it sound that licensor did not handle it well and their response is suspicious
If anyone says anything that is semi favouring him he makes it sound like 100% in his favour. The askgambler never said OP was right but the reason was lack of providing information from coinplay. The way he is denying the licensor's response he would do that same if askgambler was saying things against him.
Reason was said arbitrage betting, then multi accounting from the same household which also led very well to arbitrage betting so what licensor said are very well relevant to the case.
There are many other things that feel like the whole story was not told as it happened but whatever presented, presented nicely to make it a strong case.

Most importantly if coinplay was really wanted to scam the OP then why did they returned his deposit?

We all are speculating and supporting flags, leaving red feedback based on what OP wants us to do. Lacking of communication does not mean you are guilty. If coinplay was fucking co-operative and giving us information then it would be helpful but that does not mean I have to flag them, red tag them from only hearing one side of story.

There are few other scam accusations against some other casinos which are still active. If I really need to support this flag anymore then I will have to ask the same for others too. Looking at these people who are creating topics against businesses on the forum, these businesses who are spending tons of money for advertising, does it make sense for them to scam members for $1k, $2k, $5k or even $10k?

 

It's not a secret I'm from the Netherlands, but I think you missed my point: making fun of Belgians is an ancient thing here (we say they're dumb, they say we're cheap).
FWIW: I have no doubt about OP speaking Dutch. Not that it matters. In my opinion, this is enough:
They didn't:
The regulator's response also doesn't look like any evidence was provided.

I know it was you. But I asked BitcoinGirl because she withdrew the support. After all, she thinks the whole story was not said. I wanted to hear more from her because I trusted her judgment. In my opinion, whether OP is German or Dutch, or he is Dutch but lives in Germany, is not matter here anymore. Because CoinPlay did not trigger, KYC and OP did not verify or submit KYC. So, this is irrelevant to share where he is from.

There is no one from Antillephone. So, I guess the question will remain unanswered. You ask via email if you want to.

Huh? We? Does this Include you? Have you ever disclosed this before in this forum?

Yes, I'm Dutch and living in Germany for 17 years. So let us all stop about that subject, it is totally irrelevant where I was born. I never denied that I have a Dutch nationality so please people don't make it look like I was hiding something. All that counts for terms and conditions is where you live.

About that comment from Antillephone, it really surprised me. I strongly believe they just passed on a lie which Coinplay told them, and didn't check it. I know I have only opened 1 account at Coinplay and I live alone in my household. It is absolutely impossible that a second account exists on my same device (=laptop). I really believe Coinplay just made up something that would warrant a confiscation (if it were true) so that their licensor would not be able to punish them or suspend the license.
If it truly was this way, then why did Coinplay not simply submit this proof to Askgamblers? It would have saved their reputation and shut me up immediately. But instead they vanished from the forum and allowed their signature campaign to stop over this, and they would just let that happen if they have a clear case against me?

And the bad thing also is, that Antillephone came up with this line literally 6 mins after I emailed them, but then in the 10 days after it they ignored all my follow up emails asking for further explanation and proofs.