And that is the extent of the capacity of arbitrator that fairlay choose, any arbitrator they choose, really, be it the one newfish1 agreed [efialtis and me] or the one they unilaterally choose, or the ones that [let's suppose] they finally decide to choose together later in the future: reasoning why the bets should be confiscated or paid.

This is not like a case of late-betting accusation that can be validated through matching the time of the player placing bets and the actual playtime, where the result pulled will be an absolut, a yes or a no. Nor a case of multi-acc that [privately or publicly] the casino can provide their findings and detection that matched one account to other, where the arbitrator will then validate those matches.

On this case, the arbitrator can't decide whether the game is rigged or not and that decision be taken as a fact to made a ruling. All they can do is take a spin into the case, walk through it, and pull their opinion and reason to justify why newfish1 should or should not be paid. That's the extent of what he can do, ethically.

With above statements as basis, then a question that I believe should be valid to be asked will be: then why bother looking for an independent arbitrator while all the independent people here [they're not affected at any degree with the outcome of this case, nor related to any party, thus safe to assume they're independent bodies] already take a look into the case, walk through it, and pull their opinion and reason why a step should be taken instead of the other?

Go with the majority decision, case closed. That simple.