I don't think I'm siding with Stake and I don't think Stake can steal, I'm simply [apparently] being the only one who read their ToS regarding this case. And being someone who read a ToS to get a better understanding of a case shouldn't directly translates into me siding with one party.

Let me break it down, currently they're at the moot point. Stake can't prove if OP got tipped or simply followed a trend, but the fact remains, jeffyeps placed a bet that's later become problematic and Stake suspected him that he's in a breach of 4.19. with a nail on 4.19.e. [that I'll have to say, it's a rather "clever" way for them to cover themselves], thus 4.21.



It'll be a different case if Stake accuses jeffyeps out of the blue that he placed bet on a rigged game, or whichever point they can select from 4.19.a. to 4.19.d., for this, Stake will arguably tries to cheat from their player. The problem here is there was a basis. A game was rigged and made in collusive manner. Regardless he simply followed a tip or not, Stake reserves the right to withhold or retain the amount that otherwise payable to him as they consider the event may have occured or likely to occur.

They can't exactly be said stealing from someone who give their consent to consequences they'll face upon some clauses in a list of agreement, can they?

But allow me to turn the table, for argumentative purpose and not for nefarious reason. How sure are you that you are not biased and siding with the player? You require player on other cases to provide his betting history for your profiling. Has you profiled jeffyeps? What does it say? Here, below are the snippets of his bets that he previously provided. I believe analyzing betting history to profile someone is your forte?