Topic: FORTUNEJACK.COM |Deposit 777 play with 1777 mBTC |Live Casino, Slots, Betting - page 240. (Read 466753 times)

Yep, let's move on. After going through all that, I was tempted to say something about how Ross Ulbricht was caught, not because NSA, FBI or whoever were so smart, but mainly because of this post



with his real name in it. It was a terrible mistake, but it happened, and if he'd say in his defence, "Why would I do that, if I were operating the largest in the world illegall site?", it wouldn't look convincing, same way as this


doesn't. ... But, ok, let's move on. The case is closed.

---

A couple of days left till the end of MATCHDAY 28(22 February - 29 February).

What are your suggestions for this one, guys?

With the help of discussion here, I managed to make 4 right picks(my personal record) for the previous Matchday:



What about the next one? Can we succeed even better than that?

Right then, back to the betting. Who else here got screwed over by Barca in the Invincibles? Now it's 6 games gone and 0 streak of wins, so I suspect I could actually end the whole series with nothing to see.

Anyone watching the stats should have at least bet for the draw though, so I'm sure a few of you did, right? That's what I get for playing it like a smart ass. Speaking of smartassery... I just realised I backed a French upset tonight =D

So the case is settled... I wish this information was presented right from the get-go and not vague TOS images were posted. The evidence presented is pretty compelling. I personally am pretty satisfied with the call of nullifying the winnings now, as mere IP logs weren't the evidence of it... As for apologizing for posting 'private' data, I don't think you guys have to apologize for it. The guy made a public accusation against you guys and it is only fair you guys publicly defend yourself. Might add something about this in the TOS as well...


Gonna do just that... I feel like this is something which the players should know about and the way I see it there is a huge gap in the market and with the right set of tools can change the gambling industry forever...


Gonna discuss that in my thread, in the gambling discussion board... Gonna leave a link here once its up...


TBH I don't wanna become another Game-Protect... But I'm gonna create a thread to discuss/spread awareness about this.

---

I was about to post the above but then @amelik2 replied...


You never did rolling live tennis bets as your account was inactive and the day your buddy got banned, you decided to pop up and start betting in the same behaviour as your mate. Too big of a coincidence, Good luck trying to convince people on that...


We are all humans, we all make errors and you simply made an error by not ensuring that your IP was different when logging in. Also, Logging in on 2 accounts with different IPs isn't a hard thing to do... TBH I don't think you can convince me now that you guys are 2 separate people since you never disputed that the evidence presented by FJ is fake...

1. We already went over why the accounts were created the same day. Obviously we know each other and were told about the site at the same time. I never accepted a bonus or free play and clearly bet limits were not an issue so what would the benefit be of having two accounts? As I've stated multiple times my account from day one was registered to my name and phone number. You verified 'PatDugan' confirming their info is different then what mine was registered with. Not once have you ever given me the chance to confirm my identity although I did that for you when I registered with my name!

2. 'Patdugans' bets and being sharp are irrelevant to anything regarding this situation.

3. On Feb 11th 'PatDugan' briefly mentioned to me that FJ has good in-game tennis options and I should check it out. Hence my deposit on 2/11. My deposit came from an account verified on another site which you still have not given me the chance to provide proof.

4. We are co-workers hence the same work wifi IP. You have yet to look into the IP's both players have logged in from via the weekends or after 5PM. You will clearly see we are both going home and logging in from our houses in different towns or separate cell phone 4G IP addresses likely often being logged in at the same time. Still waiting for you to explain how we were logged in 18 minutes apart in different cities if we are the same person!?

5. Because I do rolling live tennis bets just like 'PatDugan' you ASSUME we are the same player? You apparently cut off 'PatDugan' on 2/11 but post wagers from me on 2/18? You allowed me to place wagers for a week on a flagged account...were you hoping I would lose everything and you would take the 2k deposit and never raise a red flag?

6. Your terms and conditions do not apply as we are 2 separate users who offered to verify this.

7. We are 2 people with 2 separate accounts. This is no way a violation of your TOC.

Based on all that you posted you continue to allow 'PatDugan' to play on your site? So the player that wins 50k you refuse to pay and close their account but allow the other player to continue despite apparently breaking the rules of your 'TOC'?

If I really wanted to create multiple accounts and beat around the bush don't you think I would make sure not to use the same IP as someone else that I know is a player there? We are on multiple other books who have not once ever brought up a concern. Only after winning 50k does it become a problem...

Both users created the account on the same day. One account was active until it got limited. Once it got limited the 2nd account woke up and continued a similar betting pattern (betting on low-level Challenger matches and other tennis matches). Doesn't this sound like too big of a coincidence? Two co-workers registering accounts and both are betting on the same tennis tournaments. 

I don't think KYC matter in this situation. The user can simply instruct his cousin, neighbor, random person to go through the KYC process

Having gone thru the entire thread I have come to the conclusion that there is indeed strong connection between the two accounts and hence FJ is very much within the margin of error in this case.

Too many coincidences IMO to be ignored, but it wud hv been better had u clarified it in such a manner prior.

The best way for people to take you seriously is to payback the loan you took out in 2015  .

FJ settled this case quite obviously , though at first the same IP reason given by them , was a bit lets say unsure to classify this case as multiple accounts cheating ,  their latest update regarding the betting patterns , betting activity of the 2nd account straight after the 1st one was limited etc made it pretty clear to "rule this case " in FJ's favour.

Again, I highly advise you to educate yourself on running a business or ask successful business owners about it. You are making statements that are completely backwards. Economically, anything other than reviewing when necessary is a mistake unless regulation requires otherwise.

You are right, I was wrong. I am glad I put a question mark there as I was not fully sure/misread that quickly.

What are you blabbing on about? You are obligated to run a business this way, especially if you are a public limited company (not the case here). You have a duty to investors to make profit, not a duty to satisfy customers (not that this isn't a requirement for a successful business). Every single exchange will make it a nightmare for you when you try to withdraw, and not a single one will ask you anything when you deposit (maybe a couple basic KYC). Are you stating all these exchanges are unethical? If so, I do not see you going after them - therefore no case.

The number of false positives is very minuscule and can be trivially resolved if the only factor is the same IP. People who bring forth these claims usually have triggered several other risk-factors and many gullible members fall for their cases.

You are free to play somewhere else, and leave this thread if it is of no interest to you.

The best way to prevent this is to not play on FJ!

From the investigation disclosure of FJ above, if I understand FJ's investigation and judgement approaches, what you said is not right.

You don't have to worry about any second user who play on your same IP address because there are many things FJ will consider before going to final judgement on multi accounting.

- IP addresses: both ones used for account creations and log-ins.
- Betting behaviours: are the same or different.
- Relations between log-in periods of suspected accounts.
- Maybe more.

I believe you and others will be safe if you create your account at home, then go to public Wifi to bet. There are other FJ's users bet on the public wifi but if they don't find any prove of same betting behaviours, you will be safe.

FJ investigate through some grouped IPs, not only one.

Of course, it's still a bad idea to play at public wifi to prevent any suspection.

Because if they decide to play they are allowed to do so and they should know it since the beginning. Because those players waste their time and resources on your site.


This question contains a wrong statement ( the bolded part).
Their TOS clearly state : "You are allowed to register only one Account. Registering and operating multiple Accounts (more than one) is strictly prohibited."
Being a winning player or a loser doesn't affect your ability to breack their TOS.
TOS are broken the moment you register your second account but given that anonimity is appreciated in crypto gambling ( at least at the beginning we are allowed to register an account anonimously) I understand it may be difficult if not impossible detecting a multiaccounter the moment they register their accounts.
However I find putting all your strength into play only when the player wins is a bit unethical way to run a business.

Anyway, back to this specific case, given that all FJ explanation are true, I would judge highly likely we are talking about a mutliaccounting case.

You can't have it both ways. Either you get anonymity and such a TOS and state of things, or you lose anonymity and submit KYC to secure yourself. Either one argues that all casinos change their ways, or one should not argue at all (especially if there may be conflict bias - I do not know about other people's hiring requirements).

This is what happen with Vodds or Betinasia as example = First KYC, and later you can deposit and play. But do this in crypto gambling... its impossible I think. Crypto Players want to be anonymous.

This is incorrect - will not lead to problems either. FJ does not need to change their TOS. It is very simple if you want to be honest: Register -> KYC -> play from this account. Even in cases where new users for whatever reason have the same IP as you, your winnings will not be affected by their accounts being frozen or deleted.

Hi Dear Community,

I believe, even the data and ToC was clearly enough to consider this case closed for further development, there still are some questions to be addressed. I am here to make a quick recap of the situation and vocalize the official position of FortuneJack.

1. Accounts amelik2 and PatDugan were created on March 25, 2019.  Nothing special here, accounts get created every day. Still, as from operating this business for ages, we are aware of patterns of behaviors various types of players develop. I will make one of the public - players who love to win large or bet large, sometimes create two accounts. For obvious reasons: to avoid casino restrictions, to get more bonuses, cash backs, to rest one account if they fill it has gone unlucky, etc. It's impossible to detect if the accounts are created with this pattern on the day of creation (hundreds of accounts are created every day). Still, during the play, it gets obvious.





2. PatDugan occurred to be a great player. Even he took good advantage of us, still having a good player on you casino, is a pleasure of every business owner. PatDugan's playing pattern was a little bit abusive to the casino, but still on edge, not crossing the line. A player would make a bet on sports, get this bet approved by the casino. As it happened, he would throw lots and lots of other games in the bet slip, thereby going bigger and bigger. Yet, the practice is abusive, and the Player somehow managed to be in the rules. But if the play with casino gets out of hands, the casino reserves the right to restrict some aspects of the game with the Player. To be perfectly clear here: Adding option is a willing offer from casino to players, keeping the game going, like a cashback or other promotion. Every casino ever receives the right to restrict players' gaming practice, if the playing pattern seems to be abusive to its promotions. Hereby, here is an example of betslip PatDugan used to win some big bucks, the + sign indicates, that game was added in the bet slip using the promotion.






3. PatDugan was restricted this option on February 11. Surprisingly, account created the exact same day, on March 25, 2019, that has not logged in since June 28, 2019 logs on FortuneJack. Here you see Amelik2's log-in history.




4. But this is fine as well, people log in and log out, sometimes years later. Weird thing here is that, those two accounts get linked on two similar IP's.





5. Even more suspicious is that after logging in, first time after June 28, 2019, on the same day, when PatDugan was restricted options letting Player abuse the promotion, Amelik2 (hasn't been on the website for eight months) starts to play with the precisely same pattern. Making the first easy bet, to get it approve by casino and throwing in lots and lots of other games. Notion again: + signs are identifying the games that were added into bet slip using this very promotion option, PatDugan used.





6. So, as far as casino is concerned, two accounts registered the same day, getting linked with two similar IP's, using absolutely identical patterns of playing, abusing similar promotion are two accounts owned by one person and on FortuneJack (as on most of other casinos) multi-accounting is a strict violation of rules and will not be tolerated.



7. Bottom line of this is that, the ToC clearly identifies that YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO REGISTER ONE ACCOUNT. And is clear about family, coworker, friend or friend of friends situations as well.


In addition to all this, PatDugan is indeed approved Player on FortuneJack and already has complete the KYC procedure. The Player has all the right to continue playing on the website, and none of his/her withdrawals will be withheld. In the case of MultiAccounting, and it is a common practice, Player Is always allowed the keep one, verified account.  But no player can or will abuse casino promotions, especially with multi-accounting, which is so obvious and easy to detect by experienced casino staff.


With this, we apologize to be linking this information public. Still, as the community has been involved in the case so actively and the Player has been so vocal, we believe that full transparency of the case is crucial. So all the information is decided to be public, to avoid any misjudgments over the matter.

If KYC is useless, then why did FJ take a Skype KYC for that other alleged multi-account that was allowed to withdraw funds ??

1) KYC is useless and does not work. You can buy full KYC for $50 - $150. Note: Do not tell me about the need of photos or videos with a piece of paper with today's date or anything similar. The $150 price range includes a person wearing a pink suit, standing on their left leg and writing whatever you want for this procedure. KYC does not work as a replacement for IP-analysis or fingerprinting.
2) The TOS does not "kind of protect them", the TOS gives them full protection.

---

People need to be educated to read the TOS before using service, rather than blaming services for whatever TOS they use (in this particular case, you may want to start going after almost every single company in existence).

Why would you waste time and resources on people who may not even play? Or people that lose and therefore are unable to cause an action that breaks the TOS (the relevant part here) to begin with? You need to learn a thing or two about running a business.

Even a more regulated part of our ecosystem, i.e. that of exchanges, does not do this (albeit they "do not confiscate all funds", they just freeze them or delay ad naseum). It is not uncommon that people have funds locked up for months until public pressure makes them return the initially deposited funds. Also deposited funds =/= winnings.

If you want to improve the industry without just cherry picking and damaging certain service providers, you can do the following:
1) Make a thread about the importance of reading TOS before using something and keep promoting it to educate the masses.
2) Make a thread that will encourage and demand "all" gambling providers around here to have a clearer and fixed set of rules for this. e.g. KYC before deposits, which I would strongly argue against. e.g. Additional clauses for these multi-account scenarios, where some of the money is still given to the user and then banned for good - This I would argue for (albeit I am leaving the details of this example to others - it is just a very abstract idea).

Also add to these scenarios an important aspect : all of these eventual bans you described would only take place if either Bob or Alice are winning something because all the controls seem to take place onle when players are winning and everything is allowed until you register, deposit and lose to the casino....and unfortunately it seems to be industry tandard in crypot gambling.

Good points and yet people continue to defend FJ and accuse the victim of being an abuser, to those who are claiming what happened to Innocent till proven guilty clause in case of FJ, the same parameters shud be applied to the victim too who has been held guilty without been given a chance to put his point.