Not directed towards me but I’ll answer this since I did recommend you. I know it was a misunderstanding as I didn’t explain it well, but Fairlay was looking to hold arbitration off the forum by one person with input from all on forum and you didn’t accept under those conditions. Ef declined to arbitrate. There is now arbitration being down off forum according to Fairlay’s post. People are holding Fairlay to a standard impossible to meet since outside investigation, if even done, will be done at a later time.
Let’s ignore the Fairlay is an exchange, it works more like a book or seeded exchange. The question is how would you grade based on wagers made considering amounts, time of bets as well as these wagers being very high for a small market. Fairlay can only be judged on accessible information. Fairlay’s actions on the forum do not determine grading.
Hopefully I’ll refrain from further comments.
Still doesn't explain why Fairlay choose this one [with all of the "perks" I mentioned above] instead of other bets for their "teaching opportunity".
To lay it out in the open and being transparent, as previously said, that
I have some questions and opinions that I think will add momentum to the pendulum, suppose this case goes further and fairlay did not sabotage their own "resolution attempt" by unilaterally choosing a mystery detective and goes on with having the public to give their opinion [and follows what the majority of the community suggested], I'll actually point out to newfish1 that it's there on the ToS, he was bound by those clauses he agreed upon signing up.
Many other cases I see to a resolution ended with the ToS playing a big role that binds the cheater and nullifies their attempt, or the grumpy loser from wreaking havoc to a casino, it won't be fair if we close our eyes to that very same aspect for this case.
There is a reason I deliberately
made an archive of their ToS before asking them to point us out to the clause that they use as the basis of their decision; to see whether they'll play dirty by ninja-updating their ToS, but consulting to the archived version told me that those clauses are there before, newfish1 agreed to it upon sign up.
Of which, almost simultaneously, I also asked newfish1 to begin defending himself by laying it out in the open his strategy, the one that he said will make it very clear that he didn't cheat. I'd like to know whether the point he provided will have enough weight to tip the scale [the one that previously moved toward fairlay] back to his direction.
So yeah, I can understand the part where they want to be strict, those entire pingpong scenario. But, thanks to Seymour's post that teach us to see from different perspective and weight in things that we seemingly [at least to me] missed, it'll be very naive if we didn't consider a possibility that Fairlay has another agenda on this case.
If they simply want to take action against fixed-bettors, why this one? The one where other bookmakers ruled as valid, the one which points I've mentioned above? They can go headache-free by having Jontay Porter's case. Or other case from major league where investigation from officials are more likely.
Feel free to refrain from answering this, as I actually think SeymourT will be better fitted to explain. After all, it's his teaching moment that "open my eyes". So, Seymour, the room is yours.
) so he stepped down. Finnkurd is somewhat a farm team of Ilves-Kissat, or should be. And there is more... So pretty damn huge coincidence to bet on those certain teams 
