It's actually two separate things, if not multiple separate things. Being flagged does not always for having high-probability of multi-acc. The "something wrong" here can be for many reasons. Bonus abuse, KYC falsification, accessing from restricted jurisdiction, bot-using. That's why cases on SA are treated on case-by-case basis, each case is unique and has their own elements. And that's what we do in SA, to prove or disprove the accusation and counter-accusation, to get to the bottom of each cases.

But, speaking globally across casinos about the flag made by the casinos and taking the recent situations with Betby out from equation, as well as Rollbit's recent approach of hitting every "offender" with blanket statement of "name your other account" [which... I believe, become the root of this situation where I am being summoned], related to multi-acc, yes, the possibility of false positive is somewhat minimal, if not 0%.

Of course, by "casinos" here, we are referring to reputable casinos and not those newly created that we barely know will stand for how long or will rug-pull their members.

I've been "privileged" [it's more or a burden, really] to verify some case of multi-acc, and the glimpse of what they show me to prove beyond my doubt that the accounts are being connected are... things that are not even crossing my mind. And it's just a portion from the other factors they use to cross-reference multi-acc abusers. They do invest hefty amount to these algorithm.

Now, if we stretch this further and take it to the realm of "presumption" that when an account is flagged then the user actually did something wrong, the probability is not 100% [rather, I dare not to say it's 100%] but it will still be in the higher-end of the percentage, as casinos "communicate" with each other for violators. I believe one or two casino reps openly made this statements.

In terms of sportsbetting abusers, the "communication" are carried in form of record on the sportsbook provider's database [again, taking Betby's recent situation out of equation]. The sportsbook provider is the one that made the flag. A flag raised for an offense made by a player on a sportbetting carries on and tied to the person and follow them even when they move casinos.

It might take time for a sportsbook provider to realize that username "holy" on Rollbit is the same person as username "darkness" in, let's say, BetPanda, and UID 12345678 on BC. But eventually algorithm will caught them, and thus, even without offense on Shuffle or BC or BetCoin or DuckDice or other casino who share same provider, the "presumption" [or rather... judgment] will eventually fall to "darkness" and "UID 12345678" in form of either ban-hammer or being limited.

It's actually two separate things, if not multiple separate things. Being flagged does not always for having high-probability of multi-acc. The "something wrong" here can be for many reasons. Bonus abuse, KYC falsification, accessing from restricted jurisdiction, bot-using. That's why cases on SA are treated on case-by-case basis, each case is unique and has their own elements. And that's what we do in SA, to prove or disprove the accusation and counter-accusation, to get to the bottom of each cases.

But, speaking globally across casinos about the flag made by the casinos and taking the recent situations with Betby out from equation, as well as Rollbit's recent approach of hitting every "offender" with blanket statement of "name your other account" [which... I believe, become the root of this situation where I am being summoned], related to multi-acc, yes, the possibility of false positive is somewhat minimal, if not 0%.

Of course, by "casinos" here, we are referring to reputable casinos and not those newly created that we barely know will stand for how long or will rug-pull their members.

I've been "privileged" [it's more or a burden, really] to verify some case of multi-acc, and the glimpse of what they show me to prove beyond my doubt that the accounts are being connected are... things that are not even crossing my mind. And it's just a portion from the other factors they use to cross-reference multi-acc abusers. They do invest hefty amount to these algorithm.

Now, if we stretch this further and take it to the realm of "presumption" that when an account is flagged then the user actually did something wrong, the probability is not 100% [rather, I dare not to say it's 100%] but it will still be in the higher-end of the percentage, as casinos "communicate" with each other for violators. I believe one or two casino reps openly made this statements.

In terms of sportsbetting abusers, the "communication" are carried in form of record on the sportsbook provider's database [again, taking Betby's recent situation out of equation]. The sportsbook provider is the one that made the flag. A flag raised for an offense made by a player on a sportbetting carries on and tied to the person and follow them even when they move casinos.

It might take time for a sportsbook provider to realize that username "holy" on Rollbit is the same person as username "darkness" in, let's say, BetPanda, and UID 12345678 on BC. But eventually algorithm will caught them, and thus, even without offense on Shuffle or BC, the "presumption" [or rather... judgment] will eventually fall to "darkness" and "UID 12345678" in form of either ban-hammer or being limited.