Topic: Sportsbet.io - A Case of Selective Withdrawal Approval and Dubious Practices - page 3. (Read 963 times)

I'd like to acknowledge Steve from Sportsbet.io for his efforts in addressing my withdrawal issues. While it's clear he has done what he can, unfortunately, he doesn't have the authority to overturn decisions made by the security and safety team. Thanks, Steve, for your assistance throughout this process. It's a tough situation, but your effort hasn't gone unnoticed.

Betcoin, Nitrobetting and ParlayPlus are pretty good as far as not asking for KYC. If they ask, you've done something wrong. Stake and Sportsbet are bad with KYC since innocent people seem to be getting caught in the net. Delays can be long. Maverick and Roobet are mandatory KYC. The rest are in the middle as far as sportsbooks go.

Not trying to defend SB [though I can see and hear myself that it awfully sounds like it] but, aren't these points extremely biased? I mean, if we break them down:


This is a common practice shared by any centralized crypto casino, not exclusively SportBet's. People are allowed to create an account and deposit without any prior requirement, and only later on, when the necessity arise, they're required to perform certain level KYC, as per what they've agreed on the ToS during sign up.

That's why it's actually [regardless how "anti-privacy" and counterintuitive it is] always advised to clear your KYC prior to play and/or deposit on any casino, to prevent inconvenient situation in the future.

There's no win for this argument. If the casino make it a requirement for their customer to perform KYC during sign up, prior to any game play or even a deposit, I can hear them screaming "this casino steals identity through enforced KYC!". If they don't require you to perform it upon your first, second, third, or twentieth play, and only requested that when they deemed it so, situation as quoted above occured.

Can you name me one or two casinos that does not require their customer to perform KYC at one point? Even a web3 casinos [decentralized casinos] will require KYC upon certain triggers.

If you don't want to perform any KYC, then go to a casino that doesn't require KYC. Here, there's a thread listing casinos who require KYC and those who are not.


Can you please be more clear on what you mean by them lacking a transparency in regulatory standing? It's there, at the bottom of their page, like where most casinos have it: the information and the seal of validation of their licensor.



And, "their gaming license is not recognized in major markets such as the UK", is this a fact? That UK major market does not recognize Curacao gaming license? Where can I validate this statement? If it's true, then many casinos out there are in a serious identity crisis, many of them are licensed by Curacao authorities. Anyway, how does it related [UK recognizing a license or not] to what a company sponsored?

Further, in order for me to get a better understanding of who you referred to and I can compare them myself with many casinos I know, can you please mention the names of those reputable platforms that list their executives and corporate structures transparently?


As what can be inferred on both points above, this is not exclusively applied to SportsBet. In relevance to that part of post I quoted above, any platform poses this risk. Literally any platform. Your brick and mortar bank even poses this risk. Why does SB being specifically and exclusively mentioned here?


I don't think I still need to cover this part, do I? I am more than willing, if people asked me to. Meanwhile, it'll be very very nice of you if you can address all of those points I raised above in reply to your own.

what was the outcome after talking to Steve?

Critical Warning: Consider These Risks Before Using Sportsbet.io

Review:

As a platform that has faced significant scrutiny, Sportsbet.io presents several red flags that potential users must be aware of before engaging with their services. My experience and extensive research have revealed alarming practices that raise questions about the platform's integrity and operations.

1. Misleading KYC Practices:
Sportsbet.io allows new users to deposit funds freely but restricts withdrawals following winnings, creating a misleading and frustrating experience. This is not an isolated incident but a recurring issue widely reported online. The platform's use of KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements is often arbitrary and serves as a pretext to withhold legitimate winnings. Their terms and conditions give them sweeping powers to request KYC and limit withdrawals at any time, akin to an authoritarian regime that applies rules selectively to benefit themselves. Despite assurances, many users continue to face hurdles even after completing KYC, leading to lost confidence in the security of their personal information.

2. Continued Risk Post-KYC:
Even after completing KYC, using Sportsbet.io comes with inherent risks. The platform's operations and the lack of transparency around its leadership and regulatory standing are concerning. Unlike reputable platforms that list their executives and corporate structure openly, Sportsbet.io's management remains a mystery, with no presence on professional networks like LinkedIn. Additionally, their gaming license is not recognized in major markets such as the UK, yet they sponsor Premier League football clubs, creating a false image of legitimacy.

3. A Cautionary Tale:
The recent collapse of FTX and the scandal surrounding its founder, SBF, serve as a stark reminder that no platform, regardless of its size or the surface credibility, is completely safe. Every user must weigh the risks carefully, recognizing that platforms like Sportsbet.io may operate in grey areas of regulation and customer protection.

Conclusion:
Potential users should approach Sportsbet.io with extreme caution. The practices observed and the difficulties many have faced suggest a pattern of behavior that prioritizes the platform's interests over user security and fair play.

That's because he's not a new fresh account, he's been on Stake for three years and on platinum 6, and he did not get his betting limited, he get a bet withheld [and the whole amount confiscated, not just the winning], he placed a bet in Jontay Porter's bet.

---

To avoid confusion as happened to above poster, I'd invite you to address that concern on jeffyeps's thread and not here, focus things related to his case on his thread. Though I won't be able to comment much and/or help pushing things to Stake or even nudged them about it, given I've withdrawn myself from that thread.

It turns out that every book except Stake paid the bet as a winner. That bet was in January. The second time the game was rigged in March is when people caught on to games being rigged. DraftKings blew the whistle in March and regulators went back and looked at more bets. Stake had zero intent to pay the player. No one thought the January game was rigged until it happened a second time.

The player posted at BCT in February. Stake didn’t know the game was rigged until March.

Theres no way a normal stake account has these limits on nba props

I have used stake and when my account got semilimited my maxbet on props were around 300$ winnings theres absoluty no way that a new fresh account has a 20k$ winnings limit

Is there more background on this guy? Was he a massive loser to get better betting limits?

I’m not really looking to rehash any old cases. I’m sure Jeremy reads the thread. If he disagrees with anything I’ve said then I’d be happy to show evidence requested but I’m not looking for a fight on old cases since there doesn’t seem to be any value to others.

Oh sorry for being unclear, I was not talking about the OP of this thread and his case. I was talking about your open proposal to Sportsbet's representatives.

As previously mentioned, SB's representative have tendency to not revisiting a thread when they consider it closed. But I think I can invite either one of them, or perhaps both, to answer your question below... if you still want to proceed?

I'd go "resolved". He took it to Steve in private and we haven't heard back. You could reopen if OP comes back.

I'm gonna drop the first paragraph of yours as things will spiralling down if it gets another oxygen.

What I'd like to address is the last paragraph [well, from my quote, not from your original post], whether stake should return his deposit or not.

Ethically, yes they should. They can't prove that the user is colluding, neither can the player proves he's innocent. If this is his first "offense", then jeffyeps entitled --again, ethically-- to a degree of benefit of doubt and get his betting fund returned. But legally? Stake has the full rights to do what they currently did, especially as there is an indication [as you acknowledged yourself] that his bets are somewhat questionable, and that he's not innocent.

I believe Jeffyeps made a wrong assumption when he said that he has scrubbed the ToS and didn't find any that justifies Stake to confiscate his fund, since the term only said voiding a bet. Well, unfortunately he only scrubbed the sports-terms, not realizing that it is a "sub-terms" of a larger one, where the point previously mentioned resides].

The question is [and I believe it should be the closing question of this topic as we're once again have been way out of the topic] what will you do and say on his thread?

Now, attempting to bring us back on track, to the topic being discussed, I believe you haven't give me an answer to this question?

I am biased. I always go in with the assumption that a player is innocent and a book must prove him guilty. His betting history isn’t good for his case which is why I didn’t declare him innocent at that point.

With the exception of books with licenses in the UK or US, no honest books give players limits where they can win $45k on prop bets and that's rare. I've never seen anything close to that. I'm sure Draftkings won't do that again. Books that do this are going to take your money if you lose and take your money if you win on a $45k win prop bet. NBA prop bet limits are normally between $300 and $2000 offshore. I'd guess $500 is the most common. I just found something that I'll quote below although I think he's talking about US books.

If I went by which is more likely, I’d say the player is guilty. At the same time it’s very likely that Stake was going to steal his money either way. When I've previously said the player did nothing wrong, the meaning was nothing wrong that has been proven.

Since neither can be proven, take away his winnings and return the rest of his balance. Dangerous precedent if Stake can steal whenever they want.


from ESPN Senior Advisor

I don't think I'm siding with Stake and I don't think Stake can steal, I'm simply [apparently] being the only one who read their ToS regarding this case. And being someone who read a ToS to get a better understanding of a case shouldn't directly translates into me siding with one party.

Let me break it down, currently they're at the moot point. Stake can't prove if OP got tipped or simply followed a trend, but the fact remains, jeffyeps placed a bet that's later become problematic and Stake suspected him that he's in a breach of 4.19. with a nail on 4.19.e. [that I'll have to say, it's a rather "clever" way for them to cover themselves], thus 4.21.



It'll be a different case if Stake accuses jeffyeps out of the blue that he placed bet on a rigged game, or whichever point they can select from 4.19.a. to 4.19.d., for this, Stake will arguably tries to cheat from their player. The problem here is there was a basis. A game was rigged and made in collusive manner. Regardless he simply followed a tip or not, Stake reserves the right to withhold or retain the amount that otherwise payable to him as they consider the event may have occured or likely to occur.

They can't exactly be said stealing from someone who give their consent to consequences they'll face upon some clauses in a list of agreement, can they?

But allow me to turn the table, for argumentative purpose and not for nefarious reason. How sure are you that you are not biased and siding with the player? You require player on other cases to provide his betting history for your profiling. Has you profiled jeffyeps? What does it say? Here, below are the snippets of his bets that he previously provided. I believe analyzing betting history to profile someone is your forte?

It’s not for nefarious reasons but you are obviously siding with Stake. No one has proved the player did anything wrong and you think Stake can steal. There are no clauses that the player has broken.

Think logically. When people rig a game they make big bets. The line starts moving, a trend is set and honest people jump in on the bet. These people did nothing wrong.

If Stake had 500 people make that bet can Stake steal the balances of all 500 people?

How do you propose this to be done? Do you want me to invite Steve and/or Jeremy to come back here? Far as I know, once they mark a case as settled [or handled externally, for this case], they're not returning to the thread. So your statement above has a very high chance of being missed.


How sure are we that he's innocent? Just like Stake can't prove that he got tipped to place the bet, that player can't also prove that his claim is true, that he's simply following the trend. I personally find it quite raising an eyebrow that [if he's simply following a trend] he placed a bet that's significantly higher than his usual bets, or that he bets on props. Maybe you can look into his betting history and do a profiling on him based on the data?

Oh, by the way, if I may ventured OOT just a bit further, to straighten things, in case there is any doubt about my "bias", that I made those statement on that thread based on assumption, Stake's ToS actually covered about holding the fund for such circumstances. I had it screen captured in one of my device in case the necessity ever arise. He simply did not "scrub" deep enough.

And no, this is not me being partial and siding with Stake. I still condemn their decision to drag cases for months and I still like to see myself as impartial on that case [despite that user seemingly think I am a devil's spawn]. I'm simply stating a fact here. A clause is written on their ToS, so I pointed that out.

Then I’ll do it this way since I said I don’t want to pile on Sportsbet. If Steve or Jeremy deny that Sportsbet is taking deposits for first time offenses, I’ll hunt down cases. Otherwise I won’t clog up the forum and will just comment on new cases.

The Stake player did nothing wrong. He was unfortunate to bet a game that turned out to be rigged. The player wasn’t in on it. Exclude the winnings and give him the rest of the money. Following the trend on one bet makes it ok for Stake to steal your balance? I follow the trend on tons of plays. Stake can’t steal the money from every single player that happened to bet that game. Other books aren’t stealing that money from anyone except those in on the fix. If you had bet that game, should Stake steal your money or just cancel winnings?

Even those deposits from the fixers will most likely have to be returned. Stealing the whole balance is illegal. DraftKings blew the whistle and I don’t think there’s been a conclusion to the case which is why the money is being held.

You can't edit a thread [as in the opening post] unless you're the OP of the said thread. I believe you know this. Were you trying to say that you'll edit the post quoted above with lists of cases? If so, I'll suggest you to create a new and separate thread instead of posting it here.

It'll rather be OOT if you post it here... though with careful and proper wording, I think you can make it a bit on-topic.

Talking about OOT a little... that guy on Stake who bets on Porter, I wonder what made him think the repercussion for such violation [be it deliberate or his claim is true that he's just following a trend] will just earn him a slap on the wrist, get the bet voided, and he will ultimately still get his funds returned. I would love to see the world he grew up in.

It wasn’t my intent to beat up on Sportsbet here with an onslaught of cases. But to answer your question it’s going to come across that way. A little later I’ll edit this thread and post cases where Sportsbet takes winnings and deposits. Even with accused first time offenses, Sportsbet wasn’t returning deposits. With Stake we just saw a case where Stake grabbed a guys deposits. It was the Porter rigged prop bets.

My opinion is if you are profiled as a loser, Stake and Sportsbet pay fast. They know you are giving the money back so they aren’t going to bother you. If you are profiled as a possible winner or hit for a lot of money, there’s a decent chance of having KYC done and it can be extensive. The other options would be to limit your wagers, give you a second set of lines or change your margins and it can be done fast.

This type of thing is by no means new to the sports betting industry. They’ve been profiling sports gamblers prior to the Internet when people had to walk in casinos. Limits were changed for some. Beards (people making bets for a winner to hide identity) are used to enter casinos.

What is new is that these online casinos are stealing money from winners and those hitting for big money.

I am once again find myself in a confusion reading your post and think it's a bit contradictive. Perhaps you don't mind to explain it better?

1xbet-and-bit aside as their nefarious reputation is very much well established... about reviews for Stake and SB, if most cases that's being posted on trustpilot are not valid, then wouldn't it imply they're a smear campaign or people throwing muds or venting their anger for being busted?

And thus, them confiscating deposits and winning are either a false statement made by the smear campaigners and mud slingers, or a valid one from those who got their account blocked and got angry at SB and Stake [and perhaps any other big casinos out there] and try to make them pay by giving low rating and scalding review?