Topic: Roobet.com not paying on their mistakes - page 4. (Read 3438 times)

Unfortunately legally the TOS trumps anything that might or might not be shown on the screen to the player I think. Particularly the clause about software errors. Unless there are laws in their jurisdiction that would invalidate such TOS clauses. But still showing a win and not paying it out is a shitty thing to do regardless of CYA TOS.

LOL... that wasnt clear to me either... Man, THEN all this is a big farce really and even though it doesnt change that legal shit, its completely unprofessional, lame and pathetic. How the fuck do you explain a notification that your player won $11k and then say "well, sorry dude, max payout is $2k".  As a side note, this could get interesting even from a legal perspective...

Ok, I take it back then. That is more fucked up than I thought. I'm starting to think you have grounds for a flag.

In the box I just showed you up above $11,662 and some change was shown won.

I was talking (and I think Welsh was too) about the win amount. Were you ever shown that you could or did win $11+ thousand or was it your calculation based on your bet times 36?

Actually every bet you win or lose is displayed in a box on the left. On roulette ot shows all the bettors and their amounts in each round. Then when the wheel is done spinning, the winners are displayed in green with the amount they won, and losers are shown in red with - at their amount bet.

I'm not sure but I think the max win display would always show $2000 even if you entered a larger bet, and Yahoo never was shown an $11000 win. IMO that's the only technicality that keeps roobet from being an outright scam in this scenario.

correction: yahoo says he was shown the large win so yeah...

I've not used roobet or any gambling site for that matter for a long time. I've only picked up information from this thread, and some of it was based on my interpretation of that. I was definitely speaking from a more legal point of view, and more objective point of view. Morally, I'd rather not get into it as I don't know the specifics. For example, you mentioned that the icon was small, and looking at the screenshot it is fairly small. However, how are we to determine what would be big enough. Ideally, it needs to be in plain view rather than being hidden behind an icon that you have to click or hover over.

So, my interpretation of this whole scenario was wrong. Let me be clear, the win amount displayed once betting the amount was displaying wins over $2k? I thought it may have been similar to that of skybet (at least how it used to be) in that once betting you could go beyond the maximum return bet, however it would always display the absolute maximum you could earn. If, its the other way around then is it a little more morally misguided.

Actually roobet didn't admit it was a bug but fixed the non-existent bug anyway. And the max win was not displayed if you didn't click on an obscure icon, so basically you could enter $500 and click 36x without being aware of any limitations - what would you expect to happen? In case of a win I would expect to get $18k. So I strongly disagree with roobet's attempts to have their cake and eat it too. They need to be either 100% transparent about limits without digging around and without needing a calculator, or have strict limitations in software, or both.

Legally they're right but I don't think yahoo was planning to sue them anyway. Legal doesn't mean honest however.

Nice strawman attempt...

Which POINTS do you want to refute ... HE knew the conditions , HE accepted the conditions, HE fucked up and brought into play the conditions HE knew HE agreed to operate under.

All the proof you need hey lol

I know a few users have stated that this is a shady practice or borderline. Well, most gambling sites have it in their terms that if a bug has been found whether it is known by them or not that the bet would be refunded, and not paid out. As Suchmoon points out Roobet also has this written in their terms. Gambling websites are perfectly in their right to wave off any bet that was the result of a bug within the system, and refund the initial bet amount. Instead, Roobet actually paid to the maximum win which I think is the best possible scenario in this.

You could argue that this is common sense to not allow users to bet if the amount goes over the maximum win. However, several bigger gambling sites allow you to do this. If I recall correctly Skybet  used to have a cap of 100k on certain sports. The return will always show that you are going to win just 100k, and not over which seems to be the only difference here. For example, if you were betting £20, and it displays the maximum bet is 100k you can still bet more than that on their website. So, in theory you could bet £25, but it still displays the win amount to be 100k.

The only difference I can gather from this discussion is on Roobet it displays that you'll win more. However, if they have stated that their maximum bet is x amount then the normal process that other gambling sites would have taken would have been to apologize, and refund the original bet amount rather than paying out for the win. This is subjective, and can sometimes lead to users feeling outraged, but what has happened here is one of the better outcomes of this situation as per their terms which you agree to when signing up, and using the website they don't actually have to pay out if the bet is subject to a bug of the system.

It is an annoyance for the customer, but if the customer knows about this in advance, but still bets knowing they would only be paid the max bet amount then that isn't any better than a gambling site which has it in their terms that they will only pay out to the maximum bet amount.

If you had lost the bet amount then that would have been a different circumstance, and would have been a even bigger shitstorm, because if you knew that you could potentially get that bet refunded, because of their policy of only allowing a certain amount to be won then the gambling site could suggest that you purposely bet over the amount just in case you lost, and have the potential to get a refund, and not lose any money. I'm not suggesting that is/was the intention, but that would have been a moral debate that I think a lot of users would have been split on, because there's two sides of the story.

Roobet have now fixed it according to this discussion so this can't happen in the future so something good has come out of this discussion at least. You have been paid to the maximum win amount, and Roobet have at least honored that where other gambling sites with less integrity would have likely refunded it.

The fact you are calling your opinion irrefutable is all the proof I need to not discuss this with you any further.

I do not care at all what happens here, I just provided my opinion about a really borderline policy which is shady enough to at least discuss it and make everybody aware of it.

I'm not placing any bets there, period. And that's the last I will say about this topic.

No, your post does not address the irrefutable points that I made above. HE knew the conditions , HE CHOSE to accept the conditions, HE fucked up and brought into play the conditions HE knew HE agreed to operate under.

Get it now?

He should have chose to go somewhere else.

Give him the amount he over bet on back as we suggested earlier.

From reading all these posts it looks like there isn't any one side who wins here.
What don't you guys reach a compromise in order to settle this?

It is not really important how we will call it, it is important that they should pay the full winnings.

It is extremely funny that somebody's explanation is 'we let the players bet how they want'. Yea, the world is full of idiots wanting to bet 1000$ on a roulette number to win 2000$. That by itself is borderline scam and fixing it does not change the fact it was explained like that in the first place.

If the bet was taken, paying the bet is the only way forward.

I for one will never play at Roobet after a situation like this, how you handle your mistakes says more about a company than anything else.

As long as there an evidence this will still be an issue to be discussed, Not all of the users here care about for some reputation of the gambler.
But if I'm also on yahoo62278's position I may exactly dissatisfied to this even if its a misclicked bets. But also I may agree as well to TMAN to go on a 50/50 basis to both parties, with that both parties can move on and fix what needs to be fix.

---

And as for the negative, Disagree... This is not a scam, first of all yahoo62278 has been paid back the only thing is its not what he expected to received.

This community is seriously becoming sycophantic and a circlejerk.

If this had been a newbie account, the first question would have been "So you misclicked, huh?". They would then have been flayed on the point that "So you knew they were fixing the bug". How many times have you seen discussions regarding newbies explaining their "honest mistakes" and the community coming down heavily on them.

Yahoo has a reputation for being professional. He should get his extra bet refunded and any bug bounty that the casino wants to offer. Yet, all these people coming here conveniently accepting that his mistake is not even open for discussion, aren't being completely unbiased.

Why? It's a fairly logical solution and it's exactly what "brick and mortar" casinos do... they return the overmax bet (in this case that would be $323.949 - $55.55)... and then payout what needs to be paid out... which in this case, is the max win of $2000.

To me, the bigger questions in all of this is... has anyone else playing on the site placed an "overmax" bet?

if there is a maximum win $2000 as he appeared $11662? I think it is one line of code enough to solve that, and the winner will never see a number higher than 2000.
the obvious omission of Roobet devs side. Yahoo has nothing with that and they need to pay them his full win. Mistakes happen and they must accept it.
Any discussion about accidentally click is meaningless, he could also lose then he would be to blame for his loss, but it is not, he wins and casino refuse to pay them.

i am new here but this is stupidest suggestion i ve ever seen
edit> no offense i have noting against you just saying ,i read all comments