I read your post three times, and I still failed to see the exact point you're trying to say. You're mixing what people said with what I said. I don't think I ever said about arbitrage betting, the bookies decision and rules, passport, and whatever else, so I am not sure why are they brought to the table.

Talking about table and case, your request to bring the evidence to the table, again, I can't, for the reason I've previously mentioned. And about me and that, "I want this forum and you not to work for bookmakers because of their stars in the rating! ", well, I can assure you that I stand on neutral ground. There is no benefit I get from the casino or the player for each and every cases. When a case is closed and marked as resolved, they'll give their thanks at best, and I'll move on to other case.

But if you're so sure that I am biased and taking side, then I am afraid what yahoo said is true, about how unless one's opinion agrees with you, you will find something wrong with the judgement. And from this point on, any further discussion is indeed meaningless.

Oh, to clarify one thing, about passport. What you propose [while I am still not sure why it even brought and mentioned here] is not feasible. Just because someone work in a travel agency or immigration office or other places with lots of passport come and go through their hand on daily basis, the person can't just snatch one passport and use that for KYC purpose, stealing identity.

Casinos don't even need to have the person to take a photo against the background of the casino. Why? Because KYC process will require the player to take a selfie while holding the ID next to them. With this, surely I don't need to explain why stealing ID when you're working in travel agency will not work.

Last, PM, for that particular message, unfortunately I have to explain it here in the open against your wish to keep it not in the "open mode", in concern that if I address them privately with what I have to say, you'll think my response is a refusal to cooperate and that I am taking favor of the casino.

However my answer to that [other] wall of text is this:

"Unfortunately I can't comment on any of what you inquired, not the one here on the message you sent to me today or the other ones in the future. Because from how I perceive it, especially with what you write in the "open mode" that's awfully looks like you digging for a knowledge how you tripped their alarm and get yourself on this situation, while they [as well as other casinos] send the evidence with for-your-eyes-only basis is to keeping their detection algorithm private is to safeguard their investment in multi-acc detection.

There will be no end to it. If I am being completely honest and say "no, that's not what they show me", you'll propose other thing and I'll say, "nope, not that one either", and you'll propose another until I say, "yes", and you ultimately find how the casino detect multi-acc. Or I'll just keep saying no and you'll reach a point where you'll accuse me of lying [because everything is a "no"] and taking side of the casino. See? Dilemma.

So, to keep it simple, I'll address your inquiry publicly and say that I can't answer that, with a reason that I think you're looking for a way to understand how they detect your activity. Nor will I address any message in the future with same nature.

If you want to discuss other thing like providing your own evidence that you did not multi-acc [not sure what kind of evidence it will be] or other thing besides digging for an info about how they got you on multi-acc, my inbox is open. But if your message is about poking what alarm you triggered, what evidence they showed me of your multi-acc, and other in similar nature, unfortunately I can't answer that.

Those said, I can answer to the very last part of your PM, and I'll address that through my reply in PM."