I am late to it but let me make a guess.
The OP placed a bet, odd changed from 2.15 to 1.5, the accepted odd was 1.5 and the stake was $1000. But then OP lost the bet. You refunded the bet that was placed instead of making it a loss bet. If this was a winning bet then it does not make sense for OP to be happy with the refund only, he would needed his investment and the profit.
It's the other way round. The odd was 1.5 then it rose to 2.15 around about the same time OP was placing it. The system accepted the 1.5 odd instead of notifying him that the odds had changed. OP lost the bet, but he has been refunded the initial stake given system error which is fair enough.
Yeah I can see where I was wrong but the end result stills is in OPs favour, isn't it?
If the conclusion is the bet has been lost then no matter what the odd become the OP was not supposed to receive anything for the lost bet but he received the stake that he wagered. Or I got this wrong too?
If I may jump in, yes, you get it correctly. The odds changed from 1.5 to 2.15 and it shouldn't affect OP's situation as his bet is a losing bet. However, he argued that he'll probably have a change of mind and took a different decision due to the odd change. Thus he insist it should be voided.
I assume BC choose to be the bigger man and out of a good gesture, they granted that request and voided the bet, thus OP got his balance back. Of which... he immediately use them to place another bet, which become the root of this recent issue.
It is worth to mention [in case you missed this piece of relevant information] that OP is a gambling addict, he raised an accusation against other casino [using his bitcointalk alt-account, which
unearthed by
AHOYBRAUSE], remanding a refund because he was self-excluded in one of his account but was able to made bets with his other account. He did not mention that he has two accounts on that casino during the self-exclusion request, arguing that they should have known because he made correspondence with... two of the casino's representative, through both of the email addresses, simultaneously. That case settled in his favor, and few days later he had this case with BC.
I
asked BC's representative to put him in exclusion during his initial case, but that piece of information seemingly missed by their representative. I am currently in touch with a staff of BC, I am trying to get him placed in exclusion. Not because I have issue with OP [I see him much like other cases I attended] but simply and honestly because OP clearly need external help for his condition.
OP,
ghostingura2, I am still waiting for that quote of their rules that said bets made from a cancelled winning shall be voided as well.