Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 05:45:12 PM

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 05:13:36 PM

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 05:01:18 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 04:34:59 PM

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

It's not that it didn't sink in, bluntly, I simply question the correctness of your statement, that the fund transfer happen between player and casino, that the provider doesn't involved in any. Is this a fact known with 100% certainty from you? Because, the reason I question the correctness of it and choose to take it as mere words instead of commiting it to my memory, from several conversation I have with casinos across many past cases, they have to pay the provider back for forfeited bets and/or the provider tell them which fund is payable to the player and which fund is not.

Riddle me this simple question, if the entire transaction and activity happens between casino and player, then what's the role of the provider? They simply provide a game script, let it be licensed to be played on a casino, and the casino paid certain amount for contract on certain period? Or perhaps other similar scenario?

And, since this is a scam accusation board, I'll certainly appreciate if your explanation can be supplemented with some kind of backup evidence to support that statement, that provider doesn't involved, and casino doesn't have any monetary obligation to the provider for bets being settled vs forfeited. I can produce mine --a rather fresh one, in fact-- if you do [with well-placed censor to ascertain privacy of the nature of the case, the casino, the player, the thread, the situation, and all, of course]

Yes I am sure and this is my frustration and why I come across so harsh. I said in my first post that I agree with the casino because of jurisdiction.

I'll appreciate a proof to back up your statement instead of just "yes, I am sure", I believe I've asked for it. I am ready to provide mine to prove the otherwise, that casino held a monetary obligation to pay-back the provider and/or to release fund that's only okayed by the provider. In fact, I'm just one talkimg away, I already have it in my gallery, with censored part to maintain anonymity.

The simple question that riddled me also still left unanswered, by the way.

then prove it so we stop repeating. The provider can charge a flat fee or percentage of losses.