Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 26/06/2025, 22:28:28 UTC
@holy I asked you to jump in the case thinking it would take 5 seconds. I'll stick to every word that I said. Since it seems the case is over, there's no longer any need to rehash.
Change of heart, I'll show one thing.
from holydarkness
Actual rules
Change of heart, I'll show one thing.
from holydarkness
Quote
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.
Actual rules
I would like to think that it needs, because otherwise, you're proven to be twisting words and falsifying statements and make false narrative to discredit someone.
I'd like to add point 5 though: show me where in this thread that holy changing the rules saying that value betting was illegal.
And that weak point you gave as a lame rebuttal has been explained. Either you deliberately twisting it again hoping that people would believe your "evidence" or you barely read. You certainly snip it to work in your favor, as my reply showed the entire context. I'll repeat, here:
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. You said the provider flagged for arbitrage. Did the provider flag for arbitrage? Are the rules you posted for CLV fake rules?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 is coming from the provider. It was them who warned the casino, just like they do with the other casinos. And no, not CLV or ROI, arbitrage bet. I've mention this many many times. Just escrow the fund and you'll get the confirmation from the DT.
And again, what rules do I post? I'm not a rule maker, I didn't post any rules. What on earth are you talking about? Now, I am saying this in a friendly tone to once again try to deescalate the matter [despite above paragraph, because I am serious with that]: calm down, breathe, ground yourself, 5-4-3-2-1 technique if that helps. You're hurting your own image by looking like someone frantic and spewing words that I didn't say. In other circumstances, people will consider this as you twisting words and making false statements to discredit someone else.
Quote
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.
That's not a rule, that's me telling you that the flag made by the provider was specifically about abritrage bet. not CLV, not value betting, not other thing. Arbitrage bet.
this is the full context of the post:
I edited my post. Had 2nd thoughts on discussing but since you asked.
1. Value betting= CLV (closing line Value) not arbitrage.
2. All 5 of your reps were wrong. They said the odds provider makes the final decision.
3. You only got a headache because you were unaware of the meaning of CLV. You should have stopped when they showed no proof of arbitrage.
4. I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it.
5. There is no middle ground. XYes made up another story and changed from Value to Arb.
[image snip]
1. Value betting= CLV (closing line Value) not arbitrage.
2. All 5 of your reps were wrong. They said the odds provider makes the final decision.
3. You only got a headache because you were unaware of the meaning of CLV. You should have stopped when they showed no proof of arbitrage.
4. I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it.
5. There is no middle ground. XYes made up another story and changed from Value to Arb.
[image snip]
No, it says "arbitrage bet", not CLV, no other thing. Specifically "arbitrage bet".
[...]
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.
It clearly address your point number 4. You state, "I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it." and I made a rebuttal, clearly explaining that the flag did say arbitrage bet.
I'm still waiting for your answer for 1.56 million USD. Say yes, escrow the fund, select a DT member, and if I agree that he's fair and won't misuse the data provided, rather to simply prove/disprove the content, I'll share. Then you'll get your answer that provider indeed the one who raise the flag to this user. Say no, and we all know the quality of a man that call himself Rating Place.
By the way Holydarkness, providers indeeds is the one flagging for whatever (arbitrage, value betting etc) but they never void the bets. The bets remain unvoid and shown as won in cases like this. The fact that the sportsbook (in this case XYes) then only pays back the deposit, means they put the voided winnings completely in their own pockets. The provider does not get these funds, as far as they know the bets are still won and paid.
Maybe. I don't know. I think I have similar discussion about what happened when a flag raised and where the money went to. But it's no longer relevant, is it? I'm no longer pursuing the casino to persuade them to a middle ground.
Edit: tidying post and quoting my own post being referred more properly.
Original archived Re: XYES.COM SCAM
Scraped on 26/06/2025, 22:23:55 UTC
@holy I asked you to jump in the case thinking it would take 5 seconds. I'll stick to every word that I said. Since it seems the case is over, there's no longer any need to rehash.
Change of heart, I'll show one thing.
from holydarkness
Actual rules
Change of heart, I'll show one thing.
from holydarkness
Quote
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.
Actual rules
I would like to think that it needs, because otherwise, you're proven to be twisting words and falsifying statements and make false narrative to discredit someone.
I'd like to add point 5 though: show me where in this thread that holy changing the rules saying that value betting was illegal.
And that point has been explained. Either you deliberately twisting it again hoping that people would believe your "evidence" or you barely read. You certainly snip it to work in your favor, as my reply showed the entire context. I'll repeat, here:
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. You said the provider flagged for arbitrage. Did the provider flag for arbitrage? Are the rules you posted for CLV fake rules?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 is coming from the provider. It was them who warned the casino, just like they do with the other casinos. And no, not CLV or ROI, arbitrage bet. I've mention this many many times. Just escrow the fund and you'll get the confirmation from the DT.
And again, what rules do I post? I'm not a rule maker, I didn't post any rules. What on earth are you talking about? Now, I am saying this in a friendly tone to once again try to deescalate the matter [despite above paragraph, because I am serious with that]: calm down, breathe, ground yourself, 5-4-3-2-1 technique if that helps. You're hurting your own image by looking like someone frantic and spewing words that I didn't say. In other circumstances, people will consider this as you twisting words and making false statements to discredit someone else.
Quote
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.
That's not a rule, that's me telling you that the flag made by the provider was specifically about abritrage bet. not CLV, not value betting, not other thing. Arbitrage bet.
this is the full context of the post:
I edited my post. Had 2nd thoughts on discussing but since you asked.
1. Value betting= CLV (closing line Value) not arbitrage.
2. All 5 of your reps were wrong. They said the odds provider makes the final decision.
3. You only got a headache because you were unaware of the meaning of CLV. You should have stopped when they showed no proof of arbitrage.
4. I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it.
5. There is no middle ground. XYes made up another story and changed from Value to Arb.
[image snip]
1. Value betting= CLV (closing line Value) not arbitrage.
2. All 5 of your reps were wrong. They said the odds provider makes the final decision.
3. You only got a headache because you were unaware of the meaning of CLV. You should have stopped when they showed no proof of arbitrage.
4. I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it.
5. There is no middle ground. XYes made up another story and changed from Value to Arb.
[image snip]
No, it says "arbitrage bet", not CLV, no other thing. Specifically "arbitrage bet".
[...]
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.
It clearly address your point number 4. You state, "I know what those player analysis sheets are that you are talking about. Once again it said Value or CLV. It didn’t say arbitrage from the provider and you know it." and I made a rebuttal, clearly explaining that the flag did say arbitrage bet.
I'm still waiting for your answer for 1.56 million USD. Say yes, escrow the fund, select a DT member, and if I agree that he's fair and won't misuse the data provided, rather to simply prove/disprove the content, I'll share. Then you'll get your answer that provider indeed the one who raise the flag to this user. Say no, and we all know the quality of a man that call himself Rating Place.
By the way Holydarkness, providers indeeds is the one flagging for whatever (arbitrage, value betting etc) but they never void the bets. The bets remain unvoid and shown as won in cases like this. The fact that the sportsbook (in this case XYes) then only pays back the deposit, means they put the voided winnings completely in their own pockets. The provider does not get these funds, as far as they know the bets are still won and paid.
Maybe. I don't know. I think I have similar discussion about what happened when a flag raised and where the money went to. But it's no longer relevant, is it? I'm no longer pursuing the casino to persuade them to a middle ground.
Edit: tidying post and quoting my own post being referred more properly.