Agree that I don’t know what happened other than intent. If the OP played from a banned jurisdiction at Betcoin and some others, then Betcoin would return his money.
I am sorry, but I can't take you seriously, and I don't trust your neutrality. You seem to be motivated by other factors. Shilling Betcoin while pulling down other bookies you don't like. You remind me of another account (which might actually be your alt account based on the username) that praises Nitrogen Sports on every occasion.
Sportsbet can’t keep stealing money. Yesterday Sportsbet stole $500 from an another player claiming attempted double spend using a rule stating “ in our sole discretion”.
It was the same as the last one. At first they accused the player of multi-accounting and the changed to double spend using this rule.
7.6 If we determine, in our sole discretion, that you are using the "Double Spend" methodology, the Website shall void all bets and winnings. Specifically, if you win, then confirm your deposit on the Blockchain and attempt to withdraw, all winnings will be confiscated and your account will be closed permanently. We shall also exercise this right where similar activities are attempted from any connected accounts.
I am not aware of the case and can't comment on your judgement. Regarding double-spending. Sportsbet.io has instant deposits. That means, you can play with your bitcoin even before the transaction confirms on-chain. However, you won't be allowed to withdraw your funds before the deposit transaction has been confirmed on the blockchain. If you attempt to manipulate this feature by double-spending, while at the same time requesting a withdrawal, then I completely agree with the casino for confiscating the player's balance and banning him. If that's what happened. It's manipulation and cheating and deserves to be punished.
One does not mistakenly double-spend a bitcoin transaction. But if the player did so to bump the fees to get a quicker confirmation, it's a completely different matter, as long as the bumped transaction didn't go to another address not under the casino's control.
I find it a little strange that Sportsbet is the only book grabbing deposits for attempted double spends. They started off with multi-accounting and then changed to double spend since the rule is "in their sole discretion". Sportsbet and Stake are the only two that I’ve posted negatively about and it’s due to recent problems. You make a lot of false allegations. I asked Theymos to change my username and he was nice enough to do it. I know that Sportsbet is your favorite book but you have to be objective. I’ve praised BC.game a couple of times recently, "Great job BC.game and all casinos should follow". I don't even have a rating up for them yet. I praised leebit 2 days ago. I praised Trustdice a day or two ago. You also ignore the times that I've stated Sportsbet is correct. I used Betcoin because I could have proved my point if needed. I'll continue to praise the good books and call out the bad. The goal is to help players. You want to back Sportsbet for an obvious theft while being unfair to Nitrobetting. When you were saying untrue things about Nitrobetting, at first I assumed that you didn't know better. Now I know that's not the case. Whenever someone asks why Nitrobetting isn't on your list, you continue to be untruthful even though people corrected you on multiple occasions. You are the last person who should be questioning motives. I have no idea why you keep posting erroneous information on Nitrobetting when you know it’s not true. At the same time, I don’t care why you do it.
I don't think Sportsbet gives bonuses for sports gambling. The other reasons aren't plausible because of the markets bet and dollar amount. No book cares about a $500 bettor in a major market. It's not going to draw attention.
My guess is banned jurisdiction but I could be wrong. The whole point is that no advantage was gained by the bets of the player. We have to start treating these cases as they would with a fiat book. Fiat and crypto have almost identical ToS. Books just apply the ToS differently. I play at crypto books because I don't want to be hassled and believe that the bitcoin price will rise. There's too much hassle going on with some of the crypto books.
Assuming that OP did accessing from UK, and thus violate their restricted region ToS, I believe this question you made earlier are now answered?
[...]Sportsbet - give us one reason why a guy would multi-account betting $500 in major markets?
Oh, one thing that I forgot to address on the beginning of our discussion today, that question is actually... wrongly worded. OP was never accused of multi-acc, he simply got his account blocked upon withdrawal request, which now [if we assume the UK theory] become apparent why such situation happened to OP and why would a guy pull a stunt for USD 500 bet.
Nonetheless, moving on, I am still interested in knowing more about your method to "figure out any crime" as it might be beneficial for future cases, so I'd like to repeat, "
how do we figure motivation and intent? I assume user's narrative plays a big role in it, so it invites a question of how do we know they tell the truth and not hiding things, thus obscuring his intent and motivation?"
Look for why a player would want to cheat a book. Circumventing limits, bonus abuse or bot use to gain an advantage is almost always the reason. Someone that only value bets may be using a bot. If all bets are value bets in small markets, he is using a bot. If someone is betting mostly widely available lines, he’s honest. Players getting an advantage is what books look out for. If a player posts 10 of his plays, he can easily be profiled and we’ll know what he’s doing.
I've done a little bit of everything in the industry although things are 1000x more advanced now with biometrics and AI. If someone thinks they are going to get away with multi-accounting, they are dead wrong. Services such as Veriff are really good. AI is used for betting patterns. All data is being stored.
Back in the day the only worry was multi-accounting and sharps. The only thing that needed to be looked at were bets to see if there was a reason to multi-account. If the bets were all value bets then this player had to be limited or banned. These people also needed to be looked at for multi-accounting because they get banned and limited everywhere. Players that only bet prop bets have to be looked into. Female players are also a red flag for multi-accounting. The thing back in the day is that it was no harm, no foul. The book didn't search for every rule in the ToS or look for loopholes. Deposits weren't being confiscated. Some books even paid out bad lines that other books cancelled. They would give you the choice. Take your winnings and get banned or cancel winnings and keep playing.
Today the books are doing a lot of scamming. If a player breaks an inconsequential rule, by the letter of the law his money can be taken. I believe if there is no intent to cheat a book, then don't take his deposits. Looking at bets speeds up the process. If the bets aren't value bets where you can arb or take the weak side, then there is no advantage to the player. If there's no advantage it's not that big of a deal if you are playing at a banned territory since it's an even playing field. The book let you play there so they can't all of a sudden grab your deposits.
The books that steal deposits have the right to steal by the terms. But what about terms such as "in our sole discretion". If the ToS is against something that a judge would throw out in court, then the ToS should be ignored. If not ignored then us players have to stick together and stop books from taking advantage of us.
If you have players post all their bets, I’ll give you real life examples and tell you if there is ill intent. It’s similar to the last BC.game case.
I took a look at the OP’s bets. He’s making pre-game bets on major football leagues. There’s no reason to multi-account. What caused the red flag to ask for KYC? I don’t know if you are using Veriff as a third party but they are pretty good with identity but this criminal behavior claim doesn’t seem to hold any validity. There’s no money laundering going on for this amount. If he did something at another book it doesn’t carry over to your book. Player should be paid from my point of view unless I’m missing something. This seems to be an overreach by Veriff or another third party being used.
BC paid and I respect their decision. There wasn’t a lengthy process where BC.game searched to find something irrelevant.
