Topic: Trustdice.win , UPD: TRUSTDICE SCAM, 2138$ USDT confiscated. (SOLVED) (Read 1730 times)

Well, that's one of the issues. They say they want to improve and do better in the future and what do we see in the case involving Poika5? We see another unproven allegation that a player was doing late betting on TrustDice. They have also accused the person of using multiple accounts. I will probably have a look at that case soon because I am curious about the proof or lack of it. We will then be able to see if and how the casino has improved.   

Yep, I was talking about that. You should give the reference of Poika5's topic if you want to keep your negative feedback for his issue.

They tried to close the issue in a bad way, but they have apologized finally and said this on 19th December


So, we shouldn't expect any proof of late betting activity as TrustDice team have accepted their fault and paid the user, then they apologized for it. The representative has also mentioned that they will try to improve their systems.

It's your decision whether you will keep the negative feedback or not. I just tried to highlight that 'Negative feedback' and 'solved accusation' are two opposite things.
@holydarkness & @Pmalek, thank you for the replies. I'm not going to bump this topic again with new replies as the accusation has been resolved and both of you have decided to keep the negative feedback based on it.

If you think about the feedback that I left (The casino locked a customer account accusing the player of doing "late betting". Not a single example of a late bet has been shown to date to warrant such an action.), it's still valid even today. They unfroze the player's betting account in the meantime, but the point is that they initially closed it for a non-valid reason trying to trick the community into believing the player was involved in late betting. And after all that time, there is still no example of a late bet.

I haven't looked at Poika5's case, but my gut feeling is there won't be ay proof there either. Since I am not familiar with that incident, it's wrong to leave ratings about it. I am sure these two incidents aren't isolated cases. Deleting one feedback only to add the exact same or a similar one mentioning a different link doesn't change anything. Changing the 1st to neutral and adding a new one does. It adds a new "point" in their overall score. Although I consider them and their PR person/manager/whatever he is a disgusting individual who secretly edits posts thinking that will get rid of the false information shared previously, I am not going to punish them with an additional feedback for something I haven't investigated in detail.     

Move this to your own thread, you're borderline OOT by presenting the evidences here, not to mention it's rather non-contributing to your own case as Coinbox1 probably didn't visit this thread anymore after 3 January --that's the last date of their edit on their first post on this thread.


So... you're suggesting me to... delete or change the trust into neutral with reference for this thread, and create a new negative one with reference to Poika5's case? Although it would be more technically correct, it seems redundant, no? It'll be better to just leave it the way it is until Poika's case got cleared then leave the feedback in reflect to the result of the case.

Although I haven't made any post here while the main discussion was going on, but I was following this accusation from the initial stage. I know that TrustDice team didn't show the professionalism here to solve the problem. They only did it after getting pressure from the forum members. It has created a bad impression in the forum about TrustDice services.

@Pmalek and you have left negative feedback with the reference of this solved accusation. OP has added 'solved' in this thread title. TrustDice team behavior was obviously wrong, but negative feedback doesn't fit with a solved accusation. Neutral feedback with a proper comment will work as a warning as well.

Poika5's accusation is still unresolved. TrustDice representative hasn't provided any proof there. It would be reasonable to leave negative feedback on TrustDice representative account based on that accusation. Although Sportsbet has provided the evidence of multi accounting in your mentioned thread, but crypto casinos rarely does it in a public forum. TrustDice team should post the proof here as they have made their reputation questionable by making false claim against 'Laki21000'.

I don't trust them, so the negative feedback will remain. You can see a screenshot in Poika5's thread where they mentioned they will try to investigate the reason why the player got banned and had their money confiscated. Imagine the unprofessionalism of this casino? They ban you, take your money, and stay silent hoping you won't say anything. And then if you complain and make some noise, they will start "investigating" to see what led to the ban. I have never seen anything like that. Maybe he should be put in prison and then the judicial system can investigate to see if he did anything wrong to land in prison .

Only after their so-called "investigation", they started playing the multi-accounting card and again using late betting as an excuse. Laki21000's case has shown they have no idea what late betting even is and that it can't be done the way they presented it. Take a random match from their sportsbook and watch what happens in the last minutes. All betting markets are closed.

They can play their little games with someone else, but not with me. They are a dangerous and malicious subject in the crypto gambling industry, and players should know about that.     

No, I just didn't want to deal with this during the holidays.

I dont know how can i prove that i didnt multi account, but i will try:
1. Im from a very small country and i bet on small/specific market, I would get caught/limited really fast if i tried to multi account.
2. Multi accounting was pointless because i had other alternatives, a few hours after i got limited on Trustdice i deposited money to Thunderpick.io, a site that uses the same sportprovider.

29. September, 100% limited from TrustDice.


29. September, Thunderpick.io deposit:

By the way, its been 3 months and my Thunderpick.io account is still not limited.


I got banned for 2 reasons:

Winning sports bettor = detrimental to Trustdice making money.


As we know Trustdice thinks that every live bet is a "late bet", and I placed 4 live NBA bets, because I still had to finish my 5x rollover(I was banned from Esports betting, so I could only bet on "normal sports").



Getting scammed feels awful, so here is a little bit of mental gymnastics:
They scammed 1700$ from me, but i helped Laki21000 get his 2100$ back.
So in a way banning me cost them 400$, which makes me happy.

Grab your popcorn, it'll be a long story to read.


The feedback is not solely made on the case of Laki21000, it also reflected on how they addressed the situation for accusations raised against them in general, i.e. banning without trying to look for clear evidences first, or even tried to consider listening to the defense made by the accuser (the user they unilaterally banned), how they goes into grasping straws like this, or how when they're cornered, instead of trying to address the situation professionally, they choose to twist words and changing narratives through a sneaky edit like this or this --not to mention that the original unedited-but-edited post was hinting a hidden threat of "we know you"--

But, as I am quite agreed with what examplens said on paragraph two and liked the perspective I previously failed to see on the paragraph three, I was more than ready to change my tag, as stated on the quoted post below,


However, sadly, that outcome is not quite reached. We are still not in the clear on why Poika5 was banned on the first place. Sure, they offered evidences that AG deemed trustworthy enough, namely one of these (see the screenshot) which later rebutted by Poika5 on the whole post.

And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post, we can only assume on several things, one is that Poika5 did multi-acc-ing, or maybe it was the "inhuman activities", and when they realized it's a lose war, they buried themselves. If this is the case, and TD has proofs, I am failed to see why they can't provide the proof of multi acc here and need to have a third party with policy of hidden evidences. If I may mention name here, Sportsbet tackled similar issue without needing to wait for so much ruckus.

If I may point out one thing that's seems amiss to me is how TD basically goes through this whole headache of blocking Poika5 when they offered KYC, twice, then insist that they need KYC to see the problem only after Poika got concerned of their privacy, then going through AG, dragging the whole situation on excruciating slowness, taking their time to verify KYC that the ticket almost closed by deadline only to come with the explanation that is far more obscure than what they've --forced-ly-- told us here on this forum weeks before it

Another possibility --and I have to admit that my imagination runs pretty wild on this one-- is that they reached an agreement off the screen with Poika5, with NDA involved, hence the sudden AWOLness.

But, for this case and specifically at this situation, I hate assumptions. I am well aware that I am sarcastic and witty and a real pain in Jesus' arse, but I am --at least I perceive myself as-- fair and reasonable. I would much prefer to lean toward facts than wild assumptions.

I can accept and would consider that the sneaky edit and word twisting is more likely an unprofessionalism of one entity --who named himself the-marketing-guy-behind-this-post-- and would probably be unfair to be held against the entire company of TD. Basically, all they need was kicking that guy and replacing him with someone more professional, and future scam accusation issues would hopefully didn't have to get through the same misery of smear campaign. I am more than happy to forget about the whole word twisting scene --with the sincerest hope that they won't attempt the same stunt next time our path crosses-- they don't even needs to apologize to me for whatever bad impression they've made on me, i understand completely that it's a risk included in the package when you choose to poking people with persistent questions and annoyed their days, every day, just to get to the bottom of the truth and giving fair justice to anyone deserves it.

This brings us back to what my statement on previous post said, I will consider changing the tag to neutral if they can give clear reason for the case of Poika5, which would convince me that they're a transparent and fair business. However, again, this is not achieved. We got to the bottom of Laki's case with them basically admitted they made a mistake and tried to grease their way out of it, and Poika's with something that's far more unclear than what previous "interrogation" gave us.

I'm more than happy to change into neutral if they replied here, or on the more appropriate place, Poika's thread, the evidences they said they've well documented on this "manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player."

Bottomline and tl;dr: In my personal opinion, it is not safe for anyone to play on such platform which would confiscate your funds and would only consider your case after so much noise was made. We don't know how many people out there in the past already got to this similar situation and didn't get a good ending because they're not persistent enough like Laki. And that, deserves a warning. Maybe not a type-2 flag, but clearly a tag.

But let me turn the table, purely in the spirit of discussion and not being aggro, why do you think it'll be good and safe to remove the negative and turn into neutral if they didn't show any good gesture or any sliver of professionalism?

@Pmalek & @holydarkness, Both of you have left a negative feedback on TrustDice representative account with the reference of this accusation. I know that there was some dramatic situation at the initial stage, but TrustDice team had paid the user on 19th December and apologised for the inconvenience. How reasonable is it to keep negative feedback based on a solved accusation? Isn't neutral feedback enough there as a warning?

Its been 15 days, and they are trying to figure out why i got banned in the first place.

The investigation should start BEFORE you ban someone, not after.

100% correct.

As I wrote earlier, I am of the opinion to leave flag 1 so that beginners see the possibilities of this casino, flag 2 does not actually correspond to its value at the moment, the money is withdrawn, if @Poika5 does not withdraw money, he will be able to create flag 2 where users decide , whether to support him or not, I will support him anyway, because the situation with my case is ambiguous, and I'm sure that they gave me the money just to save their reputation, but this is the Internet, and the Internet remembers everything) now in Google if you score "TrustDice scam" gives bitcointalk topics, but my topic was decided, but I will not change the name of the topic from "Trustdice scam" to something else so that people can read what is happening here by keywords.
---------
In any case, if you decide to advertise your bitcointalk casino among gamblers, be kind enough to accept complaints and resolve them with users. They still do not answer me by mail, it feels like they are sitting in a bunker or simply do not read their mail.

I removed my support for the contract violation flag since the victim has forgiven the casino's wrongdoings.

My personal opinion is that this casino is a danger to the community. They are either incompetent and have no idea how sportsbook operations are supposed to work or they are plain and simple scammers. You can see how much drama they attempted to create around the do US sports begin with a delay or not issue. That was an attempt to deviate from the topic of them confiscating someone's money for no reason. It didn't work. My guess is they were hoping to get the community behind their back in trying to portray me, holydarkness, and Poika5 as the bad guys and them being the innocent victims. Since that didn't work, they figured it's better to return the money and salvage the reputation on the forum. Most importantly, they wanted to get rid of the flags and the warning that appeared above their ANN informing the community that the casino is suspected of being a scam.

Trustdice.win is a platform I will recommend that players stay away from.
@Poika5 any news about your case?

I liked this POV.

---

Depending on how Coinbox1 reacted to and the outcome of Poika5's case on the other thread, and if they replied to what yahoo62278 asked above --an explanation of what really happened-- I'll consider changing my tag to neutral to serve as a reminder.

Coinbox1, please note that by "reacted to and the outcome of" Poika5's case, I am not meaning to ask you to work it to their favor, I asked you to address the situation properly, to be transparent and give facts according to the evidences you have. If Poika5 is wrong on their case, then provide the clear evidences, and if you made mistake on that case, then explain to the community. It called being responsible and professional.


In addition to the fact that you've opposed the flag itself, I'll take this as a request to withdraw my support. As I said, I'll honor your decision; withdrawn.

I removed my support for the flags but I ask @Coinbox1 do you actually acknowledge your mistakes and know what they are/were? Or are you just agreeing to let this accusation go away?

I hope you understand and can now focus on running the sportsbook correctly.

that flag is on the Coinbox1 profile, and you can't remove it. Currently inactive due to insufficient support (I wrote in the previous post, it was enough that I withdrew support and opposed it). You still can find it on inactive flags.



Max what you can do now is to oppose the flag by yourself and ask DT members yahoo62278, Pmalek, and holydarkness to withdraw their flag support there.

https://ibb.co/Dz8pTm2

how to remove flag 2 from me?  I don't know

the flag you left is still there, but it is inactive because there is not enough support after my withdrawal and opposing the same flag.
User poika5 also creates a flag referencing this case. since this case is positively resolved, the second flag also has no reason to be active. after all that, he no longer has any influence on that flag. nor can he erase him, and his vote is not as strong as the votes of DT members.

if you or anyone else wants to mark their profile, do it via the feedback. I'd say that's more appropriate. speculating whether they will make the same mistake in the future or whether there may be another case is still only speculation. the assumption is still not enough to mark someone as a fraud.

I would also keep this in mind. this case was resolved due to pressure on the forum, Trustdice team decided to try to protect and preserve the reputation here. if we were to punish them for a mistake they admitted and corrected, I don't know what will be their motive in the next case.

as i see flag 2 is removed.  but I agree with the opinion that flag 1 should be left so that in the future beginners know that an untidy situation with their funds may occur.  however, we are waiting for a decision on the user @poika5