You might want to revise and perhaps retract that accusation of me lying after you read my edit for your edit-of-your-edit above. It should give you some clarification and grip of what happens here and and what happens there.
Edit for your edit [again]: ...... uhh... read.
You are lying. This rule doesn't exist. A lot of those don't guarantee a profit.
To summarize: no CLV, no value betting, no syndicate betting, no bot-betting or whatever-other-betting, specifically "arbitrage bet", and the provider risk team is the one that flag this.
No one steals for CLV. Every person that gets limited is for CLV or ROI.
Take a deep breath, walk away for ten minutes, and return to the forum. You're clouded.
You mixed details of two cases. This one is arbitrage betting. Always is. Even the reply by XYes rep state arbitrage. Not value bet. The other one is value betting. If CLV happen, it's probably for the other case.
[...]
Exactly. Getting flagged is normal, and getting limited too. The difference between scam books and good books is then confiscating the winnings, which the good books (for example 500casino, Crashino, Razed etc.) do not do.
And that's... actually what I'm trying to do, to get them to pay the difference, at least part of it, namely the one that he won legitimately. Well... was trying to do. No longer interested in this case.
@holydarkness
If you are so much defending the books for consicating for value betting, do you even realize that 99% of the bets that are being placed are pure value bets for the sportsbook itself? They off odds with a margin as we all know. For example instead of 2,00/2,00 they offer 1,85/1,85 meaning they take 15% value bets on each stake on average.
Why is it that only the books are allowed to have some value bets? They make so much profit from those 99% of their customers and then they cannot stand to lose a small bit to that other 1%? That is so childish and greedy. You are so much on the sportsbooks side, it's quite rediculous.
Again, this case is
ARBITRAGE betting. I don't know how to stress this enough. if people want to talk about value betting and all that entails, go
here.
That is the one with value bet accusation.
And no, I am not trying to defend the book [though at this point, my words kinda as good as speaking to a rock] I even mulled over for a middle ground for both sides, despite the proof of ToS violation, then they crucify me, again. Just like the exact previous case, that became the reason I refused to "bridge" this case on the first place.
You might want to revise and perhaps retract that accusation of me lying after you read my edit for your edit-of-your-edit above. It should give you some clarification and grip of what happens here and and what happens there.
Edit for your edit [again]: ...... uhh... read.
hey holydarkness!
I remember you told me that you do not want to get involved in this case, but I requested to do it because that is what you have been doing for a year, and people on this forum believe your words. But I think this is enough. You are now feeding the troll who mixed up the cases and trolling you around, and are accusing you of being a liar. I appreciate that you tried to see the case. I would ask the company if they are okay sharing the documents with the reputed forum members who are interested to learn about this case. There is no need to feed these trolls.
[...]
Oh, I've removed myself from this case, right after my effort to give OP a better situation returned with stones to my head. Not just by OP and someone who seemingly think I didn't "bridge" his case is the end of the world for me, but also by someone who encourage me by saying it won't be a headache.
So, I've dropped it. What I am doing now is trying to explain to him what happened. That he got mixed up. And the flag did come from the provider. As always, as how it come with other casinos.
[...]
But uhh... yeah, that all will be no longer necessary and matter to me.
[...]