Topic: [SCAM] Sportsbet.io (Withholding funds) - page 10. (Read 4709 times)

Quote:
It's peanuts for Sportsbet And and the(that is the) reason why I don't think this is some sort of a scam.

-------

Good for you if you don't think it's a scam. Fortunately many good forum members here don't ask for your opinion.
The amount is not a factor.
It's the behavior towards the customer that determines whether the site is legit or not.

Clearly, they selectively decided to block his account and now they're doing their utmost to protect their stance because any other stance would shed bad light on their operation.

Just call it for what it is without trying to be an s.

Yeah, and when you look at rules like this:

"6.2. If you do not use your account which has deposited funds in it, for 3 months you will receive a notice from us. If you do not use your deposits within 1 month following our notice, we reserve the right to deduct monthly administrative costs from the deposits remaining In your account. The administrative cost is 15% monthly from the deposited funds remaining in your account."
"6.3. We reserve the right to close player accounts that have been inactive for more than 12 months. In case your account has deposited funds after the 12-month inactive period, we reserve the right to use the remaining deposited funds for administrative costs for closing the account."
"9.3.      We reserve the right to apply a wagering requirement of at least 5 (five) times the deposit amount if we suspect the user in using our service as a mixer."
"12.2.    If you use a Deposit Bonus, no withdrawal of your original deposit will be accepted before you have reached the requirements stipulated under the terms and conditions of the Deposit Bonus."

Well...

Although OP already confirmed not residing in a restricted jurisdictions, I would like to say a few words about this. Bookmakers always use these terms to their advantage - all bookmakers. These rules are only enforced in case of dispute (about withdrawals) and the bookie always wins

If OP was actually from US and got (only) his deposit back after SB found out, this is technically ok. But then again, if OP lost some of his deposit and then SB finds out, that he is from a restricted jurisdiction, he will not get his (full) deposit back. So this rule only ever works one way to the advantage of the bookie. They will take money from losing players, even if they were not allowed to play on their site and can bully people with their T&C when winning.

Sportsbet knows that some of their customers (who are active in this forum) are from UK or Netherlands - do they block their accounts ? No. Do these users knowingly violate the terms of Sportsbet ? Yes.

Afterall this a weird and often times shady business, but something we have to live with to a certain extent and as I said, it's the same everywhere and not only at Sportsbet. And we can always choose to not be part of it, it's not mandatory to gamble fortunately

---

It's peanuts for Sportsbet And the reason, why I don't think this is some sort of a scam.

I honestly don't know why you are so sure that I am lying about my betting on this website occasionally since this kind of information is verifiable, and it won't look nice that you were just claiming something with no evidence. So as a matter of fact, I did make deposits there.

I don't think that scamming is okay and would not work for a company that is scamming people. It's just morally wrong. I do continue to support them now because I really don't think that they would scam someone. If this was some huge jackpot, I would understand why a company would want not to pay it out (this happened with Betcoin.ag a while ago). But regardless of moral traits of the owners (I do believe they're good people for my own reasons, but it's important for the sake of the argument to show that even if one is not inclined to believe that, Sportsbet still wouldn't want to scam a person), refusing to pay out such a small (on a scale of a casino's financial operations) amount of money is impractical, as the loss of reputation would result in financial losses that are seriously bigger than less than 0.4 BTC we're talking about here.  So for this reason I think it makes sense to give them the presumption of innocence in this case.

I believe it was similar. See it yourself if you have free time.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/livecoinnet-scam-5159692
http://archive.is/T2iN8

A tldr-like post of mine from that topic:

---

I also must add, livecoin was a fine exchange up until that one incident. Things didn't go well only with one guy and they got painted bloody red all over, flagged, tarred and feathered. We will see how this one will go.
(I removed my support for their flag as soon as they made izoom whole again -they did, didn't they?-, but they still flash red. Apparently, once a criminal always a criminal the others think)


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=462136

Information about detecting multi-accounts are easily available online. There are no such hidden technology. I have done some study since it seems I am heavily involved in this case.
1. Programmable tools/methods/studies:
- IP Addresses
- HTTP Referrer
- Cookies & Tracking Scripts
- Super Cookies. Example https://samy.pl/evercookie/
- User Agent
- Browser Fingerprinting. Example https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Ref: https://www.howtogeek.com/115483/htg-explains-learn-how-websites-are-tracking-you-online/

But all have their weakness. So one can not be 100% sure if someone is multi-accounting. Here is a good read: https://superuser.com/questions/1036422/how-can-a-website-recognise-a-multiple-account-usage
Would we say the same if this was fairly new sportsbook or if the claim came up from a very well established forum member?
What would we do if some reputable members who play poker regularly in SwC files a similar case against a reputable bookie? Which side we will trust?

Livecoin failed to be transparent or a user failed to bring enough proof?

This is livecoin all over again.

I can do video confirmation, I can get my documents verified by the notary - is good enough for you to determine that my documents are not stolen and not passed around?

No, I am not from a Restricted Jurisdiction, and it is so funny that you base your skepticism (I guess, you can't come up with anything else to support your advertiser) on a level of written English  I'm using a translator if you are interested, so it is not fairly good at all.

What is the point of asking for KYC if they are not going to approve them? (Assuming his docs are legit)

The way I see it they couldn't find any other way out and weaponizing KYC which is a flag deserving behavior.

They have the right to refuse service but that's not how you do it. Be straight.

If they had done all those without asking for KYC it would have been ok then. By asking for KYC they gave the OP a false hope. (violated the contract > flag) Because they weren't going to accept his documents anyway. (Again, assuming his docs were real and he is not lying)

Wouldn't you be mad if your own KYC had failed and they refused to tell you why? I would.

*
I have sent my KYC documents to binance before. I scanned them an old ass driving license and they refused. They told me that the guy in my selfie photo and my driving license photo don't look alike.   (many years between the two shots)  Valid reason. I accepted their reasoning even though I think they both me. I don't know what would have happened if I decided to send them my actual passport scan but at least I know where I failed in the first step, because they explained it to me.

I don't know if that really can prove or disprove multi-accounting. The client can be a jerk about it and say Sportsbet is lying even if the proof is correct. It's not something that can be verified independently (e.g. on the blockchain) so basically in order to use is as proof you have to trust Sportsbet anyway.

Damn, you're right. Forgot about the offering for a third of it. Point well made, support withdrawn for the type 3 until post is corrected.


Sportsbet.io should still privately to the client or even publicly state why the client failed the KYC procedure, while protecting the clients privacy, as they have done so previously:


Let the KYC from third-parties happen. Ideally via PGP though.

May be not.
When you join sportsbet(any site), you are making an agreement with the site. You also have some implied agreement.
Direct agreement with the site- Terms and Conditions of sportsbet
Implied agreement- Sportsbet will not scam me, they will be fair, they will send me withdraw as faster as possible etc etc and showing a cause to an accusation against you also because you know sportsbet is not like some other so called casino. So, with many other implied agreement, I would say transparency of the site is another.
If you only being accused of multi accounting but there is no proof of how you are connected to other accounts will be kind of breaking an agreement in my opinion.
Anyway, the scam thing seems to be controversial here. Looking for more explanation from sportsbet. They must be transparent.
Couple of weeks ago when a guy claimed to win 171 BTC in bitcasino, many people supported, congratulated him. But when bitcasino shared all the information with greater transparency, everyone trusted them and there was no more question.

I would be willing to give Sportsbet the benefit of the doubt that the OP was multi-accounting. It is not clear if this was an innocent mistake on the part of the OP (for example creating an account in 2017 when he wanted to bet on the outcome of a game, and forgetting about it), or if the multiple accounts the OP allegedly had actually caused Sportsbet some type of harm. This is why I posed the below questions above:
As far as I am aware, Sportsbet has not articulated the harm the OP caused in having alledged multiple accounts.

Sportsbet has not alleged the OP is from a 'prohibited location' and as such, my assumption is this is not the case.

Steve said that KYC provided by OP was not passed, and he is not willing to share more details.
I wonder if we can share some basic information like OP country of residence and why they refused his KYC application.
Maybe they can have Live video session with him.

For now I will not support or oppose flag as I have my suspicions after reading all and looking at images that OP provided.

I understand that philosophy, but we don't know the whole story, and Sportsbet.io isn't obligated to disclose it.  In fact, considering what it would take to prove their suspicions to us, they are very likely obligated NOT to disclose it.

What if the OP is from the US, or another probated location?  Do you suggest they should break the law, and pay the winnings?  We don't know what evidence they have, and I'm not trusting a bitter newbie over an established business.

This is not my understanding. The OP placed bets with his deposit, that Sportsbet appeared to have accepted that turned out to be winning bets. The net winnings are excluded from what is being offered to the OP.

That's my understanding as well.  The amount they offered him (which he has until now refused) is the sum of his deposits minus his withdrawals.  In effect he would be getting a full refund, and they would go about their business, quite literally.  Somehow it's not ringing the "scam alarm" to me.

I did, thus the question since I couldn't see those amounts put together in a coherent manner to make it clear what we're talking about.

So the flag is basically invalid because the dispute is about 0.271 BTC, not 0.373 BTC as claimed in the OP. I could understand a small discrepancy but I don't think we should be supporting "written contract" flags overstated by 37%. There's probably more reason to oppose the flag than support it based on the amount alone, i.e. the claim is "at least partially false".

0.373 was the balance when sportsbet closed OPs account. Sportsbet offered him 102 mBTC. You may want to read sportsbet response here if you did not- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54840690

Yea, I get your point

An entity who receives blind trust that they will never steal from customers will end up stealing eventually.