"We will not be discussing this matter with hungerstyle any further and require that the person who sent these double spent transactions and who owns the payout address will get in touch with us and sign an agreement if he wants his coins back."
They are offering a way to get the btc returned.
Rightly or wrongly, they are attaching a condition to the return, but there is a way for hungerstyle to get the coins back (or for the owner of the payout address to get them back if that's not hungerstyle).
DirectBet - What is the gist of the agreement you want signed?
Topic: Warning: Directbet selective scam 38+ btc CAUTION - page 5. (Read 7844 times)
In case any of you missed the DirectBet official response that we posted, which includes evidence of the fraudulent activity, we now also updated post # 7 with the official response so that it will be more visible.
Hi, I am a frequent user of your website. I've played there more than few times, despite the fact that your vig is too high. But the overall experience is not bad. I just want to say to you that you are wrong. You already have the OP's winnings, he is not disputing that with you. But keeping his wager is bad. It's just not done, and it is the hallmark of a scam-book. Okay maybe he did try to free-roll you, but your evidence is weak. I dont think $20k+ is enough to drag your good name through the mud. I doubt you think so too. IL be keeping an eye on this thread, and until you resolve this, I will only use your book for micro bets.
In case any of you missed the DirectBet official response that we posted, which includes evidence of the fraudulent activity, we now also updated post # 7 with the official response so that it will be more visible.
@QS, You might know this already, but it's not just the profit from the winning bet we're talking about. They seized the initial wager as well.
hungerstyle was risking ~36BTC to win ~11BTC, so he stood to either lose 36BTC or be paid ~47BTC (he thought)
Personally I don't think DirectBet has justified not paying out the entire 47BTC, although I think both sides of that argument have valid points.
The fact that he has not returned the initial 36BTC, however, is absurd. I understand they believed they were justified in their actions, and he seems intelligent and reasonable in general, but now that all of the points have been made, I can only assume they have realized they made a mistake and just don't want to admit they were wrong after investing so much effort into the whole thing.
Not really that relevant, but worth pointing out the price in USD:
When bet was made:
Bet $16,500 to win $21,150
Now:
$21,150 to win $27,550
hungerstyle was risking ~36BTC to win ~11BTC, so he stood to either lose 36BTC or be paid ~47BTC (he thought)
Personally I don't think DirectBet has justified not paying out the entire 47BTC, although I think both sides of that argument have valid points.
The fact that he has not returned the initial 36BTC, however, is absurd. I understand they believed they were justified in their actions, and he seems intelligent and reasonable in general, but now that all of the points have been made, I can only assume they have realized they made a mistake and just don't want to admit they were wrong after investing so much effort into the whole thing.
Not really that relevant, but worth pointing out the price in USD:
When bet was made:
Bet $16,500 to win $21,150
Now:
$21,150 to win $27,550
Just reading through the email evidence the Op uploaded. It is obvious that he never admitted to double spending. He actually seemed puzzled by the accusation, but shrugs it off to retrieve his bitcoins. I mean If I were him I would do the same. At that point the sport-book held and still holds all the cards. Why the book twisted his words into an admission of guilt is very suspicious. It is possible the Op tried to free-roll them, but the same can be said for the bookie. It is their responsibility to prove beyond all doubt that he tried to free roll them, which they have failed to do so far .Their evidence only shows a probable double spend.
In my honest opinion, the book should not only pay back the wager, they are also liable for the winnings.
Its becoming a very common thing that people are trying to scam gambling sites with double spends.
I'm not saying they aren't at fault because you shouldn't be allowing funds to be used if they are not in your site wallets.
Other wise this issue is going to just keep occurring an in the case it does keep happening its only going to tarnish the name of your site.
But id say about 98.55% of the time double spends to a gambling site is likely an attempt trying to defraud the site.
They're kinda making them self's a target, if they are allowing bets to be placed with out confirmations.
I'm not saying they aren't at fault because you shouldn't be allowing funds to be used if they are not in your site wallets.
Other wise this issue is going to just keep occurring an in the case it does keep happening its only going to tarnish the name of your site.
But id say about 98.55% of the time double spends to a gambling site is likely an attempt trying to defraud the site.
They're kinda making them self's a target, if they are allowing bets to be placed with out confirmations.
@QS, You might know this already, but it's not just the profit from the winning bet we're talking about. They seized the initial wager as well.
Yes I am aware. The TOS of directbet.eu, although some may say unfair, does say that they have the right to confiscate bets when there is fraudulent activity, including double spends. I would read this to mean that they have the right to confiscate bets when a player makes a double spend attempt against them.
It is perhaps possible that the OP was attempting to freeroll the bet in question, maybe even probable, however absent more solid evidence of a free-roll attempt, I would say that the OP trying to defraud directbet.eu is just speculation at this point.
Granted the TOS does say "...when we believe..." however I would personally believe that a sports book that relies on speculation when deciding not to pay someone out is untrustworthy in my eyes.
@QS, You might know this already, but it's not just the profit from the winning bet we're talking about. They seized the initial wager as well.
hungerstyle was risking ~36BTC to win ~11BTC, so he stood to either lose 36BTC or be paid ~47BTC (he thought)
Personally I don't think DirectBet has justified not paying out the entire 47BTC, although I think both sides of that argument have valid points.
The fact that he has not returned the initial 36BTC, however, is absurd. I understand they believed they were justified in their actions, and he seems intelligent and reasonable in general, but now that all of the points have been made, I can only assume they have realized they made a mistake and just don't want to admit they were wrong after investing so much effort into the whole thing.
Not really that relevant, but worth pointing out the price in USD:
When bet was made:
Bet $16,500 to win $21,150
Now:
$21,150 to win $27,550
hungerstyle was risking ~36BTC to win ~11BTC, so he stood to either lose 36BTC or be paid ~47BTC (he thought)
Personally I don't think DirectBet has justified not paying out the entire 47BTC, although I think both sides of that argument have valid points.
The fact that he has not returned the initial 36BTC, however, is absurd. I understand they believed they were justified in their actions, and he seems intelligent and reasonable in general, but now that all of the points have been made, I can only assume they have realized they made a mistake and just don't want to admit they were wrong after investing so much effort into the whole thing.
Not really that relevant, but worth pointing out the price in USD:
When bet was made:
Bet $16,500 to win $21,150
Now:
$21,150 to win $27,550
I attempt to include as little of a transaction fee as I can when I am spending my coins.
Additional evidence can be found in the payout address, as we posted in the official response.
When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet misconfiguration or user error or fee saving. That's intentional fraud.
If he was trying to save on fees, then how come when he double spends he is all of a sudden willing to pay 0.001 BTC fee for a small 190 bytes transaction (!!!) which is way more than the maximum fee recommended ?
I attempt to include as little of a transaction fee as I can when I am spending my coins.
Additional evidence can be found in the payout address, as we posted in the official response.
When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet misconfiguration or user error or fee saving. That's intentional fraud.
If he was trying to save on fees, then how come when he double spends he is all of a sudden willing to pay 0.001 BTC fee for a small 190 bytes transaction (!!!) which is way more than the maximum fee recommended ?
He placed a live bet in-play on a Tennis match and funded it with Bitcoins that were already spent on another transaction as you can see here :
https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/89be96f6cecf47de065ea152b3d1bd969047cb282c61a4c30d82d78e38ef1ddd/
Looking at this transaction more closely, it looks like the original transaction was originally seen by blockcypher 27 days ago, while the transaction that eventually got confirmed was originally seen by blockcypher https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/89be96f6cecf47de065ea152b3d1bd969047cb282c61a4c30d82d78e38ef1ddd/
Unless there is additional evidence of additional malicious activity, then I would say that sending a low fee transaction that does not get confirmed and then double spending that transaction 1-2 days later is not evidence of fraudulent activity. Unless you have specific evidence to contradict this, it is possible that the OP was somehow attempting to send the first transaction to himself (either via sending BTC to his own wallet, or attempting to deposit to an exchange or other casino that will only give credit after 1+ confirmations).
Just because he at one point included too little amount of fees for his transaction to get confirmed does not mean that he can never spend those coins
In addition, the transaction was sent with significantly low fees, more than 20 times lower than recommended !
Now why would anyone send $16,500 bet and not be willing to pay even 1 cent in fees ?
There is only one reason. This was done on purpose to give him the option not to pay for this bet in case it loses.
No one is sending $16,500 transfer without even 1 cent in fees and with coins that were already spent elsewhere, unless their intentions are fraudulent.
I attempt to include as little of a transaction fee as I can when I am spending my coins. This is especially true when I do not care when my transaction gets confirmed, provided that it eventually gets confirmed. Your site does somewhat encourage people to include a small amount of fees in transactions sent to your site because they get credit for the transaction immediately and will receive a payout whenever the transaction confirms. Now why would anyone send $16,500 bet and not be willing to pay even 1 cent in fees ?
There is only one reason. This was done on purpose to give him the option not to pay for this bet in case it loses.
No one is sending $16,500 transfer without even 1 cent in fees and with coins that were already spent elsewhere, unless their intentions are fraudulent.
I think that you are going to need to offer more then speculation if you are not going to payout the OP's bet unless you wish to receive negative trust.
Nothing has been settled. They have not returned anything.
DirectBet is a very reputable site and has been trusted with way more than your 38+ BTC. Their site alone is probably worth more than your entire bitcoin asset. Also, it seems that the 30+ BTC bet has already been settled, although the 2 BTC one has not.
If you're intending to double spend a transaction though, that's entirely your fault and you should be persecuted instead for cheating.
If you're intending to double spend a transaction though, that's entirely your fault and you should be persecuted instead for cheating.
And what if the double spend was unintentional.
DirectBet is a very reputable site and has been trusted with way more than your 38+ BTC. Their site alone is probably worth more than your entire bitcoin asset. Also, it seems that the 30+ BTC bet has already been settled, although the 2 BTC one has not.
If you're intending to double spend a transaction though, that's entirely your fault and you should be persecuted instead for cheating.
If you're intending to double spend a transaction though, that's entirely your fault and you should be persecuted instead for cheating.
-snip-
Without a blockchain confirmation, your bet is not really "confirmed" with directbet.eu . What it does is validate the odds, amount (if and when it arrives), your winnings (if you win) and the txid.
If your bet wins, directbet.eu would grade only when confirmation arrives. No exceptions and no matter how long it takes. No blockchain confirmation(s), no payouts. Simples.
Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
-snip-
Without a blockchain confirmation, your bet is not really "confirmed" with directbet.eu . What it does is validate the odds, amount (if and when it arrives), your winnings (if you win) and the txid.
If your bet wins, directbet.eu would grade only when confirmation arrives. No exceptions and no matter how long it takes. No blockchain confirmation(s), no payouts. Simples.
Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
-snip-
You're right, it's not really a line of credit. It's something though - a risk DirectBet chooses to take in exchange for the action it attracts. It reminds me a situation I was in last summer:
During a trip to vegas I had just sprinted to the window at sportsbook to get a bet in with about a minute left before the game was going to start. The lady quickly printed the ticket, and I took out my wallet and realized all my cash was in the safe in my room (staying in same casino).
She offered to hold the ticket while i ran up to get the money. (I had placed bets with her over the past 2 or 3 days, she knew I had a room and 7stars card, and probably figured she would get a tip)
I ran up, key didn't work. Had to go to front desk, get new key.
New key didn't work, repeat. Took forever.
By the time I got back to the sports book, the second inning had just ended and the score was 2-2. I gave her a nice tip but noticed she was acting weird.
When I figured out what I had missed in the game I realized why. I had Boston moneyline, they were playing Tampa. It turns out Tampa hit two solo homeruns within the first 10 pitches of the game. Boston tied the game with 2 run homer during the bottom of the second ... right before I came running up to the window to collect my ticket I hadn't paid for yet. I went back later during the trip and got the death stare. I'm sure she was convinced I had freerolled her and would of left her holding the ticket if boston hadn't managed to tie the game when they did.
I know the situations have their differences, but, just like DB, the teller made the decision to open herself up to getting free-rolled because she thought the risk was worth it for her in hopes of a tip. She didn't have to do that, they could of called to get the bet cancelled, she volunteered because she thought it was in her best interest.
Even if she had proof I was going to freeroll her, it would be absurd for her to justify taking my cash when I finally returned and then just keeping my money AND the ticket...or somehow voiding my ticket after the game was over and refusing a refund - which is basically what happened to hungryman.
Does any of that make any sense?
Regardless of if directbet decides to reimburse the OP for his winnings, I think that directbet should not accept 0/unconfirmed bets that have less then xxBTC worth of fees attached.
I agree. If nothing is changed, this will happen again.
If your bet wins, directbet.eu would grade only when confirmation arrives. No exceptions and no matter how long it takes. No blockchain confirmation(s), no payouts. Simples.
Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
Directbet.eu is never out of pocket, and they never ever make payouts without at least one blockchain confirmation. Even when you cancel an unmatched bet, they require @ least 1 confirmation before refunding the stake.
If someone makes a large bet at certain odds, then in order to maintain a balanced book (eg for them to not lose regardless of the outcome), then will need to adjust their odds in order to attract bets on the other side of the bet.Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
Directbet.eu is never out of pocket, and they never ever make payouts without at least one blockchain confirmation. Even when you cancel an unmatched bet, they require @ least 1 confirmation before refunding the stake.
If someone double spends a loosing bet then the sportsbook looses out on that bet.
I am not 100% sure that the OP's bet was in fact one that was intended to be a double spend. Directbet originally seemed to imply (at least was how I read it) that the OP 1st set a bet to directbet, and then broadcast a competing double spend transaction, and the winning bet eventually confirmed. Now it seems that directbet is saying that the OP broadcast a transaction (with low fees), then eventually attempted to doublepsend that transaction with a bet to directbet, also with low fees.
Regardless of if directbet decides to reimburse the OP for his winnings, I think that directbet should not accept 0/unconfirmed bets that have less then xxBTC worth of fees attached.
Hey TwitchySeal,
The way things work @ directbet.eu, they were never at risk of a double spend in the 1st place. This is an illusion they created in desperation to keep the 38btc.
The way it works on their website is; you make a selection, place a bet, then an address is generated for payment. At this stage your bet is yet to confirm.You then send funds to the designated btc address.
After sending funds to their address a txid is generated, and your bet confirms. The bet status then changes from pending to "confirmed" or "negotiate". It all depends on if your bet matches your preferred odds.
But what members/users need to understand is that, the confirmed bet status is nothing more than a promisory note.
The confirmation page displays;
a) The amount received by directbet.eu (amount sent)
b) Bitcoin transaction ID
c) Confirmed odds
d) Bet Status - Confirmed or Negotiate odds
e) Potential winnings if the bet wins.
(Apologies, as It seems I cannot post images yet.)
When a bet confirms on directbet.eu, what it really means is that your bet is confirmed subject to @ least one confirmation on the blockchain.
Without a blockchain confirmation, your bet is not really "confirmed" with directbet.eu . What it does is validate the odds, amount (if and when it arrives), your winnings (if you win) and the txid.
If your bet wins, directbet.eu would grade only when confirmation arrives. No exceptions and no matter how long it takes. No blockchain confirmation(s), no payouts. Simples.
Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
Directbet.eu is never out of pocket, and they never ever make payouts without at least one blockchain confirmation. Even when you cancel an unmatched bet, they require @ least 1 confirmation before refunding the stake.
Please also bear in mind that payments cannot be made after an event ends, and the result is declared.
Let's assume for a minute that hungerstyle waited to see If Nadal was winning before sending his lpayment. His transaction would never have matched @ his preferred odds, but at a shorter price to reflect the current state of the match.
All this points to skulduggery on directbet.eu's part, to keep money that does not belong to them on trumped up charges. They should do the right thing and refund the btc.
The way things work @ directbet.eu, they were never at risk of a double spend in the 1st place. This is an illusion they created in desperation to keep the 38btc.
The way it works on their website is; you make a selection, place a bet, then an address is generated for payment. At this stage your bet is yet to confirm.You then send funds to the designated btc address.
After sending funds to their address a txid is generated, and your bet confirms. The bet status then changes from pending to "confirmed" or "negotiate". It all depends on if your bet matches your preferred odds.
But what members/users need to understand is that, the confirmed bet status is nothing more than a promisory note.
The confirmation page displays;
a) The amount received by directbet.eu (amount sent)
b) Bitcoin transaction ID
c) Confirmed odds
d) Bet Status - Confirmed or Negotiate odds
e) Potential winnings if the bet wins.
(Apologies, as It seems I cannot post images yet.)
When a bet confirms on directbet.eu, what it really means is that your bet is confirmed subject to @ least one confirmation on the blockchain.
Without a blockchain confirmation, your bet is not really "confirmed" with directbet.eu . What it does is validate the odds, amount (if and when it arrives), your winnings (if you win) and the txid.
If your bet wins, directbet.eu would grade only when confirmation arrives. No exceptions and no matter how long it takes. No blockchain confirmation(s), no payouts. Simples.
Correct me if I am wrong but my limited blockchain knowledge tells me that if there is a double spend only one of the two transactions could possibly confirm?
So your assertion, that directbet.eu confirming bets is akin to giving lines of credit to anonymous players is wrong.
If a player double spends (assuming payment never arrives @ directbet.eu) and their bet loses, good for them. But If their bet wins they lose out on their winnings. Simple as that.
Directbet.eu is never out of pocket, and they never ever make payouts without at least one blockchain confirmation. Even when you cancel an unmatched bet, they require @ least 1 confirmation before refunding the stake.
Please also bear in mind that payments cannot be made after an event ends, and the result is declared.
Let's assume for a minute that hungerstyle waited to see If Nadal was winning before sending his lpayment. His transaction would never have matched @ his preferred odds, but at a shorter price to reflect the current state of the match.
All this points to skulduggery on directbet.eu's part, to keep money that does not belong to them on trumped up charges. They should do the right thing and refund the btc.
Until a trusted member here confirms you accept stakes up to 60btc or above 4btc, I'll disregard any evidence you present.
All the bets that we book, and all the payouts that we issue are recorded on the blockchain and as such can not be manipulated in any way.
That's what's unique about DirectBet. We are the only Sportsbook in the world that records bets on the blockchain with complete transparency.
There is a thread here where you can find hundreds of reviews on DirectBet from respected Bitcointalk members :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-sports-betting-review-best-btc-sportsbooks-2018-customer-feedback-577102
We have been rated there The Best Bitcoin Sportsbook for two years in a row.
I don't think DirectBet should be neg trust bombed right now, he's addressed each issue and I don't think he has any malicious intent, he really believes the guy is guilty and he's probably (not definitely) right.
I think he should get away from the forums for a day or two and cool off though. Emotions seem to be running high - too high for any good to result.
The double-spend history attached to his wallet is still just circumstantial evidence.
Proof that previously a double spend attempt happened involving the same address is not proof that the person who placed the bet is guilty.
I really think you need to pay this guy and figure out a way to prevent this in the future. Accepting action based on an unconfirmed transaction = offering a line of credit. You're offering huge lines of credit to anonymous users. If you are going to call off bets after the fact, without direct evidence that supports your accusation [ the person who initiated the double spend attempt did so maliciously and is also the same person who placed the bet ] , not only are you going to tarnish your reputation, you're going to set a precedent for other books to consider and likely abuse.
No good can come from asking anonymous person for dox. Dox from anonymous person is just as worthless as their word.
There's no way for you to verify you have the info of the person who placed the bet, especially when were talking $15k+ worth of bitcoins. ( Everyone has a friend that will take a selfie with passport for $200 right? ) Nobody who is placing wagers that big is sending their real dox ever in this spot. You will have to assume no matter what dox you are sent, they are of an innocent third party, someone who should not be doxxed even if the double spends keep happening. Your request is petty and making it appear like you're finding excuses not to pay.
The solution isn't to make the scammers promise to stop scamming, they won't. Find a way to make it impossible for their current plan to succeed, then try and find the next exploit before they do.
I think he should get away from the forums for a day or two and cool off though. Emotions seem to be running high - too high for any good to result.
RHaver and TwitchySeal remarks were made while they did not have all the information and we were unable to contribute since the investigation was still in progress.
Look at the additional evidence that we posted above. When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet "misconfiguration" or "user error". That's fraud.
Look at the additional evidence that we posted above. When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet "misconfiguration" or "user error". That's fraud.
The double-spend history attached to his wallet is still just circumstantial evidence.
Proof that previously a double spend attempt happened involving the same address is not proof that the person who placed the bet is guilty.
I really think you need to pay this guy and figure out a way to prevent this in the future. Accepting action based on an unconfirmed transaction = offering a line of credit. You're offering huge lines of credit to anonymous users. If you are going to call off bets after the fact, without direct evidence that supports your accusation [ the person who initiated the double spend attempt did so maliciously and is also the same person who placed the bet ] , not only are you going to tarnish your reputation, you're going to set a precedent for other books to consider and likely abuse.
Quote
hungerstyle agreed he will not do it again. We wanted to make a formal agreement and he provided us with his contact information for that.
We suspected the contact information that he provided was faked, so we asked him to prove it, but he refused.
We suspected the contact information that he provided was faked, so we asked him to prove it, but he refused.
No good can come from asking anonymous person for dox. Dox from anonymous person is just as worthless as their word.
There's no way for you to verify you have the info of the person who placed the bet, especially when were talking $15k+ worth of bitcoins. ( Everyone has a friend that will take a selfie with passport for $200 right? ) Nobody who is placing wagers that big is sending their real dox ever in this spot. You will have to assume no matter what dox you are sent, they are of an innocent third party, someone who should not be doxxed even if the double spends keep happening. Your request is petty and making it appear like you're finding excuses not to pay.
The solution isn't to make the scammers promise to stop scamming, they won't. Find a way to make it impossible for their current plan to succeed, then try and find the next exploit before they do.
and the one thing that struck me as very odd is the fact that their maximum bets for any selection/event is anything between 1btc and 4 btc.
We are booking lots of big bets on a daily basis.
robinH, since you still seem unconvinced here I found for you an example of a 64 BTC winning Tennis bet that was posted on our thread :
https://directbet.eu/BetStatus.cshtml?BetID=1Ef6pGXuXpyipwCx7DUxvTrQExYwziHbU4
No need to be defensive directbet.eu, no one here is fooled by your doctored evidence. We ve all seen how you are capable of manipulating evidence to suit your agenda a' la Djokovic vs Murray bet slip.
Until a trusted member here confirms you accept stakes up to 60btc or above 4btc, I'll disregard any evidence you present. And I'd advice the community to do the same.
and the one thing that struck me as very odd is the fact that their maximum bets for any selection/event is anything between 1btc and 4 btc.
We are booking lots of big bets on a daily basis.
robinH, since you still seem unconvinced here I found for you an example of a 64 BTC winning Tennis bet that was posted on our thread :
https://directbet.eu/BetStatus.cshtml?BetID=1Ef6pGXuXpyipwCx7DUxvTrQExYwziHbU4
Jump to: