Topic: Roobet.com not paying on their mistakes - page 3. (Read 3438 times)

So you are basing your negative on what could have happened? Good to know.

Playing on Roobet was on my to do list for a while actually though I'm glad my procrastination perhaps saved me from a simular fate as the OP.

I'm just disgusted tbh by how this played out. No backbone because you know the next tough spot they are in, this will happen again. Shame on you and all the other sites taking advantage of people.

I'll change my negative feedback once you take some responsibility.

What a pathetic & unprofessional way to solve the "issue" with you - how can a "company" be so dumb instead of actually even profit (maybe not financially in the very beginning but in terms of marketing) from such an issue?

Little anecdote:

I have worked for a big online shop and last year around christmas, someone from the commercial staff priced the article accidentally wrong so it was available in our shop for only around $10 instead of $50 - the article was sold out within one day - some blogs where superb deals are being promoted posted our article etc. - and we only realized that the other day. Now we had to decide: Cancel all those orders and sending an email to our customers saying sorry bla bla - BAD publicity - or move on, deliver the article and actually make best out of it - we went for the 2. option... We sent all customers who bought the article an email where we stated, that obviously santa claus came a little earlier this year but we are happy for our customers and that we cannot wait to get their feedback on our article. Then we promoted some articles related to the one mentioned in order to do some cross-selling in addition and even attached a coupon code for free delivery! We are talking about a financial loss of more than ~250k € here and this is how we handled the situation. In the end, we received so much positive feedback and publicity, all the blogs and news sites wrote about what happened and how our company handled it - we couldnt have been happier!

Sorry, my little anecdote got a bit longer but hey, this is something I will never forget.

yahoo62278--you are getting hosed BIG TIME--tough luck bud

Your "misunderstanding" with Roobet was a big marketing opportunity for them. That they accepted their mistake and pay off your entire gain, they would get a lot more positive feedback than signature campaign or giveaway. Ignorance and blocking make things worse.

Just an update for everyone. I logged in to their site today to see where I finished in their tourney and ended up 5th for 25$. Which BTW sucks cause I was in 1st by a huge chunk last I checked. Probably lost to their "sponsored" players. They openly admit to having players play for them and stream it on twitch or something like that. Not sure how it works.

Anyways, 1st time visiting the site since they complained and tried chatting, they now have me blocked in their chat as well as look to be avoiding this topic. Looks like they're just gonna hope this whole situation goes away, but that's petty poor customer support IMO.

Very curious if they would have paid the user in case their bet lost ,  I mean to re-imburse them a % of the bet amount as obviously his bet  in case of a win would have been much higher then the max profit . But most likely they would've classified it as an user error , and no compensation would have been done.

None of that matters since these points are still clearly true

@Suchmoon.
Not a flag but negative trust rating is the persuasion tactic that I opposed. There was some bias initially and it has taken care of itself.
I too have explained my opinion enough and the points therein. Conspiracy or not, it is what it is. I'll just agree to disagree with you.

Regards..

Neutral feedback with warning about their house limits is probably just about right for this case. Roobet did not commit a scam or a clear violation of any rules but customers should know their policy in this shady situations.

You can best see how much a site values customers by the way they decide to treat cases just like this one where they are not obliged by law to pay up but it would have been a right thing to do and good marketing decision. The money is quite big in this case but not big enough that respectable gambling site wouldn't be able to cover it without second thought.

I totally support yahoo with this case and ethically  he deserves to get paid the full winnings , it's not like he won 100X of their max profit it's barely a 6X max  and worth satisfying a regular customer

honestly I haven't seen anything similar in the past with bitcoin sites but since they will take the money if the players lose then they should pay if one of their players hits
hope both parts will reach an agreement regarding this

EDIT : in the first line  I was considering that 2000 is max profit but if it's max payout then the amount yahoo won is really big compared to their risk tolerance
I left neutral feedback for the site as well then removed it cause I honestly don't know what should happen here

There could have been a problem trusting a newbie's initial report but in this case roobet confirmed what yahoo62278 is saying so I don't really see how that's an issue with his rank or standing or whatever you're still trying to ascribe to this. And sure, the viewpoint of the developer is "don't pay out", no surprises here. I also suspect even their "official" max bets are way to high for their bankroll, they know little about risk management, and even less about software QA, but that's neither here nor there.


He didn't raise a flag as far as I can see.


There are many shitty things that can be done while staying within TOS (which I could rant about for 4 more pages - they should really talk to a lawyer and to a person who knows English) and this is one such thing.


Again, he didn't raise a flag and he presented his claim in a fairly reasonable way. Nobody else piled on with flags or negatives either. You're way off base here. Multiple users saying things that don't align with your own opinion doesn't mean there is a conspiracy here.

Here are some quotes from their TOS:

CHANGES TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE

We may revise and update these Terms of service from time to time in our sole discretion. All changes are effective immediately when we post them, and apply to all access to and use of the website thereafter. However, any changes to the dispute resolution provisions set forth in Governing Law and Jurisdiction will not apply to any disputes for which the parties have actual notice on or prior to the date the change is posted on the website.

Your continued use of the website following the posting of revised Terms of service means that you accept and agree to the changes. You are expected to check this page from time to time so you are aware of any changes, as they are binding on you.

APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISDICTION

These ToS are governed by the Laws of Curaçao and parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Curaçao courts.

They can do whatever they want and whenever they want. And Laws of Curaçao is a complete joke.

Use reputable bookies.

Pinnacle

Bet365

Williamhill

europebet.com (Only Skrill and netletter payments) There is no way you will have any problems with them and the soccer markets are huge.

NOTE. I am not advertising mentioned bookies in any way.

Sadly, OP has NO case.

https://support.paddypower.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/45/~/what-is-the-maximum-payout%3F

https://www.onlineroulette.ca/guides/maximum-payouts.php

https://www.ibas-uk.com/examples/betting/maximum-payouts/

You can find more information about cases like this by a simple google search.

where is my long sentence¿

My thinking on this goes something like this. Quoting from another reply:
The website and yahoo were on very collaborative terms post launch. This could have gone many ways if they had a strategy to mitigate this. Including this being considered a "foul" or "disqualifying" move of some sort and him just getting refunded despite hitting. I said in the first reply itself, that thinking along these lines is a subjective judgement. (Like what if a newbie said the same thing?) Also, thinking from the viewpoint of the developers behind this.


Doesn't it matter that he already know that the 11K WOULD NOT pay out, Even if it showed that?? Despite that, he raised a flag on them. If its completely about being an upright user and holding the casino to "technical standards" then shouldn't we just rely on the TOS for that?

Its not like the potential win is shown beforehand. I don't know what are the implicit norms when compared with other sites. Max win does show when you hover on that ? symbol beside "bet amount".
I know its not a popular opinion. Its only natural that there is groupism. Yet, when post after post refuses to acknowledge that Yahoo as a user was well aware of this. He got paid 2K. Good for him. Yet, raising a flag like this isn't entirely justified. And IF it is for the benefit of the community, then he shouldn't make it about him getting paid. On a forum like this, people with influence should be held to better standards and, ideally, vice-versa. I have ranted about this in my earlier replies too and I get it that its more of an ideological debate. And its not just groupism that I mentioned.

I'm not ignoring the intent but what was the intent really? Do you think yahoo62278 intentionally clicked 36x for a chance to stick it to roobet? That sounds very very unlikely given the probabilities involved.

On the flip side, roobet's admission that the game was broken, the were fixing it, but didn't disable it, sounds quite negligent.

The bottom line for me is that yahoo62278 bet money, was shown an $11k+ win (took me 4 pages to figure that out LOL), but didn't get it. That's somewhere between a shitty and a scammy casino, I'm still deciding which one it's closer to. If he hadn't been shown more than $2k then I'd be leaning towards "shitty".

I don't know why you're so worked up about tangential stuff like "big boys club" or whatever. I don't owe anything to yahoo62278 and he doesn't owe anything to me and it seems that our opinions don't even quite match on this subject. If he gets pissed at me or vice versa we'll be fine I think. Maybe you should leave that out of the discussion and focus on the facts.


It would be for casino's own benefit to make sure that the software is bulletproof and doesn't actually allow stupid wins, even if it allows stupid bets.


We'll see who has the last ha ha

@Suchmoon, sorry to say this but that is just more of your confirmation bias that has been visible in this thread since you first responded. You are hell-bent on the technicality, completely ignoring the fact that OP has said from the beginning that he "knew the limit" but he "misclicked". If it was a misclick, quite clearly he wasn't hoping to get (353 X 36).

I would give the benefit of doubt to a user who was, say, actually hoping to get 11K by risking 353 USD. How does that come into picture when OP has said:

• He knew 2k USD was the max limit
• He misclicked which means he wasn't intending to bet the whole amount in the first place

In my opinion, the grouse is that even though he won, he isn't getting as much money as he possibly can. Either by holding the casino accountable on a technicality, or by them offering to meet him halfway. That is why I see this thread and the flag as little more than "persuasion".

Like someone said in the beginning, INTENT MATTERS. While you want to stick to the technicality, you (and a lot of others) are willing to ignore the grey area of INTENT. This would not have been the case if the tables were turned. If Roobet has been an established Sig campaign payer and a newbie had come up with the same "misclick", everyone would have been telling them "Dude you won 2K USD, Don't get greedy, I am sure that 2K USD is like a 1000 days of lunch-money for you". We would also be having a lot of virtue-signalling and uncomfortable questioning about the circumstances of said misclick.

I am interested to know what you make out from these two statement:


If i started a website as a developer with my own time and money in this increasingly getting desolate corner of bitcoin ecosystem (where people seem to think that adoption will come from casinos and mixers), had someone trustworthy know about the max bet, and then have the same person come back and try to extort, I'll be salty as fuck. Especially when i have been respecting the said person because apparently they have a reputation.

OP has pointed out that they are not responding. Well, they have responded initially and its quite possible that they are waiting to see which way the wind blows. Reputations can get shattered in an instant here if you are up against BCT's "Big boy's club".

---

PS: I have been going on and on about this "INTENT" thing in my previous replies. I have also been pointing out how this space is increasingly getting sycophantic and hierarchic where people don't want to rub the established members the wrong way. Nobody of any reputation seem to want to share thoughts on this. Am i the only one who is feeling this way??? Somebody please let me know if that is the case.

I wish someone like @QuestionAuthority were here. I am glad that at least @TMAN said that its a 50-50.

Really?
Polo has screwed me many times lagging closing a margin position when volume hits the fan.. You mean if that didn't sell/buy immediately when I hit the button as usual I should get my BTC back?
As a matter of fact, I think I have been banned from the polo trollbox more than once for merely complaining about these issues..

I have always chalked this up as "That what you get for trading an exchange"..

It happens on many popular exchanges.. I think I recall news stories about everyone bitching about exchanges crashing during the big dump from $20K, and their sells not going through, stoplosses not popping..
I'm pretty sure they all got what they got and that was the end of it..

If you are setting up a limit order on an exchange and screw up in the boxes, miss a decimal anywhere, your bankroll could be by by..
I recall a few sensational obvious misclicks, we could all see low liquidity shitcoins sent to the moon by an order of magnitude on the charts, and I have never seen a misclick trade get rolled back by a legitimate exchange..

What are they going to do? Take back someone else's legitimate order fill because you screwed up?

This is difficult because many say it should not be possible to place a ridiculous order, one obviously insane like betting more than you can win, but their is nothing stopping you on an exchange from slapping the books 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher than you intended because you filled the price boxes out wrong..
Better look twice, like sending a TX..

I don't know much about casinos but I have made my fair share of misclicks on exchanges (filling out the sell side rather than buy side for example), and have ate them all.. If I could have all them misclick losses back, it would be nice..


I think if a casino has a clear disclaimer that "You can bet more than you can win!!", they are not necessarily a scam for allowing you to be an idiot...
Just as on an exchange, all you are doing is taking advantage of the greater idiot..

If I put up a "casino" with the odds of "Bet 1BTC and 1/100 chance you are returned 2BTC", am I a scammer, or are players just idiots?

If I put up a "casino" and say "Bet whatever you want but you can only win 2000", am I a scammer for allowing you to bet like an idiot?

On the exchange market you just thank the lesser idiots for their money..


I do not have a clear opinion on this case because I am not sure to what degree the casino culture etiquette unusually enforces protecting idiots from casinos that allow them to make ridiculous bets, but exchanges I am used to will surely let you make ridiculous trades, misclick or not..

Should a casino not allow you to make an absolutely stupid bet?
Like betting against Trump 2020 for example? (Ha Ha I Joke)

Let's be rational for a minute, did they accept the bet? Did they show an 11k win? Did they pay the win? Are they still communicating? Have they offered a reasonable solution?

The answers are yes, yes, no, no, no.

They have since fixed the bug that they refuse to call a bug from what they posted in their Announcement thread. I have not played there since they complained that I was still playing there.

When I spoke with another site owner and asked how they would approach a situation like this and their answer was pay up and move on, it really showed me the difference between 1 site vs the other.

When you read over this thread, you have a large group saying pay that man his money. You have a smaller group saying pay that man something. You have an even smaller group saying give him a bounty and be done with it. Then you have the smallest group of all saying ToS say refund the bet and be done.

I could find ways to agree with every single opinion in this thread. So many valid points have been brought up. I would say the best solution would be to offer a bug bounty and move on, but the last bug bounty they offered was a whopping 25$ which is not really a bug bounty at all. It's a cheap thank you. Most sites who are being saved potentially thousands of dollars offer .250-1btc for bug bounties from what I've seen in the past.

These guys are a new site and i'm sure paying out a large sum like that would be a big hit to them. I'm not trying to kill the casino. Any new businesses for BTC are good as long as they operate correctly. For the most part, they have started out ok.

Situation that has been handled poorly from both sides and likely damaged the reputation due to their side trying to ignore the situation. It could have and should have been handled differently by both sides. I'm still here but they decided responding was not an issue.

It's the holidays, the money would be nice to have. I also see their side as well. My initial goal was not to try and ruin the site, I even said the site is fair to play at as long as you pay attention to your bets. Haven't tried calling them an outright scam at all. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I would like to see this resolved but doesn't look like that's going to happen.