I'm not attacking Holydarkness as if he's the devil nor do I know anything about the Duckdice case. I don't even care that he starts off thinking the books are innocent. My problem is that he's making things up in the two arbitrage cases. He's saying that the odds provider has proof of bets on both sides. They don't have proof. If they have proof I'm sureHe added many rules that neither player would object to the bets beingXBet never posted such as CLV. In fact,He said XYes had an outdated license when they already posted their betsnever had a license. If no one can show the players they are guilty then they are innocent. This isn't anything that needs to be kept secret. It's their bets.

I'm not attacking Holydarkness as if he's the devil nor do I know anything about the Duckdice case. I don't even care that he starts off thinking the books are innocent. My problem is that he's making things up in the two arbitrage cases. He's saying that the odds provider has proof of bets on both sides. They don't have proof. If they have proof I'm sure that neither player would object to the bets being posted. In fact, they already posted their bets. If no one can show the players they are guilty then they are innocent. This isn't anything that needs to be kept secret. It's their bets.

I'm not attacking Holydarkness as if he's the devil nor do I know anything about the Duckdice case. I don't even care that he starts off thinking the books are innocent. My problem is that he's making things up in the two arbitrage cases. He's saying that the odds provider has proof of bets on both sides. They don't have proof. If they have proof I'm sure that neither player would object to the bets being posted. If no one can show the players they are guilty then they are innocent. This isn't anything that needs to be kept secret.