I believe that's not how thing works, at least not on this board. You called for something, you're obligated to prove it. You're the one who are 100% certain that casino doesn't hold a monetary obligation to their provider, that the decision to withheld fund pending investigation from a provider rest solely in the casino hand because transaction happens strictly between casino and player, where the provider doesn't involved. Of which I argued that I know that it doesn't work that way based on my correspondencies with casino representatives, that's well documented.

I asked you for proof to back up your claim, and your best rebuttal is "I am sure" and asking me to prove that you're wrong? Shouldn't it works like... you prove your statement is not baseless, then I procure my own as a rebuttal to your statement and proof?

Oh, here's another interesting thing, by your own words, which I believe is still based on that 100% certainty, "the provider can charge a flat fee or a percantege of losses", tell me, how does the decision to hold a fund for investigation is still completely at the hand of a casino when they're in a deal with provider on percentage-of-losses basis? It implies that the casino tied to certain degree of monetary obligation to the provider for each and single bets, winning or losing, made by the players, do I understand things wrong?

Kindly provide proof to back up your claim and enlighten me with the puzzling situation I have on my mind on my above paragraph, then I'll procure my screenshot.

Oh, and to prove that I am not bluffing,



Give me your supporting evidence to back up your 100% certainty that casino doesn't have obligation to provider, and the decision to withheld fund is completely at casino's decision, and I'll provide that image in full version.