if you enjoy reading and linking to other articles. then you can confirm that:
1) Adkinsbet refused to pay money simply because of bad behavior on the forum! confirm
Fallacy - use of induction or extrapolation from a set of limited data points - survivor bias.1) Adkinsbet refused to pay money simply because of bad behavior on the forum! confirm
while you explain the case of a player from the UK who received two payments to his account and only the third time (when he won 2000 pounds) Adkinsbet refused to pay him because he was registered from the UK! do you confirm?
This is just not even true. The user lost 2000 pounds initially, then won it back and an additional 6300 on top of it for a net change of 5000 -> 11300.3) Adkinsbet is lying to us that they see players with the same IP address. They wrote that they immediately understood it. But they didn't block the account, they continued to accept player deposits! They took the money and knew that they would not pay later! Do you prove it
This, I agree, is something to look into. From a casino's side, they may justify it by stating that revealing practices would create routes of exploitation: the same can be said for the lack thereof, in the other direction.4) You confirm that adkinsbet refuses to pay the player simply for using the VPN service. Although the rules say that if the player does not try to hide his location, then this is allowed! Do you confirm this?
This is not what they exclusively claimed. You are creating a strawman.5) And on the topic. You confirm that Adkinsbet refuses to pay simply because "the player's bets are similar to the bets of another player(not just the same bets, but bets made with the same strategy = just a bets on basketball)" Do you confirm that?
This is not what they exclusively claimed. You are creating a strawman.