Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 08:36:50 PM

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 07:20:37 PM

I am biased. I always go in with the assumption that a player is innocent and a book must prove him guilty. His betting history isn’t good for his case which is why I didn’t declare him innocent at that point.

With the exception of books with licenses in the UK or US, no honest books give players limits where they can win $45k on prop bets and that's rare. I'm sure Draftkings won't do that again. Books that do this are going to take your money if you lose and take your money if you win on a $45k win prop bet. NBA prop bet limits are normally between $300 and $2000 offshore. I'd guess $500 is the most common. I just found something that I'll quote below although I think he's talking about US books.

If I went by which is more likely, I’d say the player is guilty. At the same time it’s very likely that Stake was going to steal his money either way.

Since neither can be proven, take away his winnings and return the rest of his balance. Dangerous precedent if Stake can steal whenever they want.
[...]

I'm gonna drop the first paragraph of yours as things will spiralling down if it gets another oxygen.

What I'd like to address is the last paragraph [well, from my quote, not from your original post], whether stake should return his deposit or not.

Ethically, yes they should. They can't prove that the user is colluding, neither can the player proves he's innocent. If this is his first "offense", then jeffyeps entitled --again, ethically-- to a degree of benefit of doubt and get his betting fund returned. But legally? Stake has the full rights to do what they currently did, especially as there is an indication [as you acknowledged yourself] that his bets are somewhat questionable, and that he's not innocent.

I believe Jeffyeps made a wrong assumption when he said that he has scrubbed the ToS and didn't find any that justifies Stake to confiscate his fund, since the term only said voiding a bet. Well, unfortunately he only scrubbed the sports-terms, not realizing that it is a "sub-terms" of a larger one, where the point previously mentioned resides].

The question is [and I believe it should be the closing question of this topic as we're once again have been way out of the topic] what will you do and say on his thread?

Now, attempting to bring us back on track, to the topic being discussed, I believe you haven't give me an answer to this question?

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 06:09:26 PM

How do you propose this to be done? Do you want me to invite Steve and/or Jeremy to come back here? Far as I know, once they mark a case as settled [or handled externally, for this case], they're not returning to the thread. So your statement above has a very high chance of being missed.

I'd go "resolved". He took it to Steve and we haven't heard back. You could reopen if OP comes back.