First thing first, has your breath calmed down and your BPM lowered and you can think straight and is now aware that you mixed the details of the two cases? This one is arbing, the other one is value bet. Yeah?
That said, yes, the provider flag for arbitrage. That's what I said, as per what my eyes see, the evidence that the casino gave to me that lead them to take the action, because the provider flag the player.
You're lying again. It didn't come from provider. Impossible for them to know.
From the top of my head, I gave you three chances to back down and to calm down and to digest the situation. I offered you to read and if perhaps you want to revise and retract your statement about me lying. I've gave enough chances to deescalate the matter. Yet you insist with me lying. So, let's escalate it. Let's put money where your logic and mouth and knowledges are.
Escrow 1 million USD... no, 1 point 56 million USD [yes, the 56 is the pun intended for the odds of the wager in this case], one million five hundred and sixty thousand USD, 1,560,000 USD to an escrow, then select a DT. I'll break my vow of silence to XYes and show the proof that was intended to be for my eyes only, that the instruction and the flag come from the provider [well, basically I am not violating their trust, as GoT is planning to ask for other reputable member anyway].
Give your words and we can settle it for good. Or... take my words that I said what I saw. And I'm an honest man. And fair.
The flag always comes from provider and it's either for CLV
or, ROI
or bonus abuse. You said the provider flagged for arbitrage. Did the provider flag for
arbitrage
? Are the rules you posted for CLV fake rules?
o 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.