Topic: Stake Casino Scam Locking 45k$ Balance (Read 1435 times)

Update on poster jeffyeps prop bets at Stake on January 26. jeffyeps is a big player with multiple 5 figure deposits and withdrawals. His first day playing at Stake he made bets totaling $80,000. He's been playing at Stake for 3 years.

Jan. 26 : Poster jeffyeps makes two prop bets, one a parlay and one straight, that include props on NBA player Jontay Porter. Both bets won at Stake paying out $42,463.48.

Jan. 27 : A US Sportsbook, Draftkings, sends out notice that the 3-point player prop bet on Jonyat Porter was the biggest winner for the players on Jan. 26. Draftkings paid all players.

Jan. 27 : Stake suspends the account of jeffyes. Stake's claim is that jeffyeps broke their ToS on having multiple accounts. jeffyeps had previously passed level 1 and 2 verification. Stake is now asking for more.

Feb. 24 : jeffyeps files a complaint in scam accusations here at BCT. jeffyeps also files a complaint with AskGamblers. Stake keeps denying verification https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-stake-holding-43k-for-over-a-month-no-update . Stake has done this on multiple occasions, sometimes delaying payouts up to 5 months.

Mar. 20 : Similar to Jan. 26, a lot of wagers were made on Dontay Porter props. Draftkings contacted gambling regulators for unusual betting patterns. The regulators went back looking at more prop where Jontay Porter was involved with unusually high amounts of tickets. While still under investigation, it looks as though the Jan 26 and March 20 bets were rigged. Prior to March 20, no one suspected the Jan 26 game and all bets were paid at other sportsbooks except for jeffyeps bets at Stake.

Approximately Apr. 27 : Stake has decides to confiscate jeffyeps' deposits and winnings.

Analysis :

1. No honest sportsbook with a license in Curacao is going to accept prop bets paying out $42,463.48. The most common limit on NBA props for Curacao sportsbooks would be winnings of $500.

2. Stake had no intention of paying this player. The player was a large player and Stake took the wager knowing that either the player was going to lose or they weren't going to pay the player. Big crypto books can get away with this tactic since they will get forum backing. Players profiled as losing players that don't hit for a large amount will get paid hassle free. If a player gets profiled as a winner, a substantial amount is won or the player gets caught in a random KYC search, then it will be different at each book. Some books ban, others limit wager amounts and some confiscate winnings and deposits.

3. Even though Stake was unaware until months later, because the game was fixed, Stake should have kept jeffyeps' winnings and returned his balance. There are no claims that jeffyeps was involved in fixing the game. jeffyps completed all verification including proof of employment and funds.

more on the game here https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39808900/nba-eyes-raptors-jontay-porter-betting-issues

Don't blame you.

Holydarkness doesn't work for anyone. It's the go to statement for a lot of people in the wrong. Although I understand your frustration, if you want help then be courteous with people trying to help.

I still think you should be paid on this one. Seems obvious you weren't in on the fix since as stated before, you jumped in on the bet, you didn't start the wave, you rode the wave.

So I am abiding your wish.

I previously tried to disregard your spiteful accusation [that I am here only to take benefit of the casinos, working for them, wishing to be offered to work for them by dong this, and so on, while I am here purely for the community] and try to keep actively overseeing this one. I understand correctly that you see me as someone very partial, perhaps even corrupt, as I am benefitted from those cases and looking forward to be employed by them?

I am withdrawing myself from this one and taking the back seat.

I was just trying to determine how justified and in line Stake's decision was. If you bet everything you have, the whole balance, into that match and they confiscate them for the reason of rigged game [we'll disregard whether you know about this or just following a trend for a moment], then it is understandable. You bet x amount of balance, the game was sketchy, so they confiscate that x amount of fund from you. That x just unluckily happened to be your entire balance.

But if you bet [let's say] USD 5,000 on that match and you have USD 2,000 left on your account, and they confiscate this too, then this is arguably unethical. That 2,000 has no involvement with the whole situation and shouldn't be "collateral" damage. That action, if that's what they did, was wrong in my opinion.


I said, "and fortunately, currently there are not new ones", and I mean it. Fortunately currently there are not new cases against them regarding KYC. Don't you agree it will be a very bitter and unfortunate event to happen to someone else? Weren't two cases already enough?

Read again [as I believe you read my statement wrongly] I am talking about future case --explained by the wording "currently there are not new ones", referring to the absence of new case in the present time-- to try to determine if Stake has turned into a KYC nightmare. I am not talking about cases that's already happened and still in the need of mediation


I believe what you're referring to what I said is this?


Please read again, I am saying that level 1 and 2 should be enough to identify and help casino flag a user, not to return the fund. How logical is it for any platform to return a fund when someone fulfill the highest KYC level and disregarding the abuse they might or might not do?


Interesting notion. I noticed, that you have a tendency to be offensive when someone said something that is against your narrative or what you want or whatever it is that's on the slightest degree against you, regardless the purpose of those question or statement.

So I am abiding your wish.

I previously tried to disregard your spiteful accusation [that I am here only to take benefit of the casinos, working for them, wishing to be offered to work for them by dong this, and so on, while I am here purely for the community] and try to keep actively overseeing this one. I understand correctly that you see me as someone very partial, perhaps even corrupt, as I am benefitted from those cases and looking forward to be employed by them?

I am withdrawing myself from this one and taking the back seat.

How does any of this have any grounds. [...]

Also holydarkness what do you mean by "fortunately" they don have other kyc issues. IF you look at any complaint site thats the majority of their issues ?

and how is it hard to believe when you yourself on this thread said that level 2 should suffice in answering and returning of funds but now its a different story?[...]

just say you are an advocate for stake. Ive complied with everything from these people and its still hard for you to believe? i dont know what more i have to prove to a person like you but you obviously are one of those guys thaat refuse think a casino cant defraud their customers. Honestly dont know why you keep frequenting this thread giving stake every benefit of the doubt and throwing words like "fortunately" they dont have any other kyc complaints
[...]

Yea its very confusing/sketchy they just come back in email and say " it has become clear that information surrounding an outcome of an event was used when placing a bet  we are confiscating funds you will receive no further correspondence from the accounts team regarding the decision. "

Crazy they post high roller bets and god forbid someone follows trend on their site how can they prove that i didnt just followw trend on when they were posting these bets publicly on their site.