Quote from: holydarkness on August 03, 2025, 10:02:50 PM

Where is the misinformation? Far as I remember, the data provided [as also acknowledged by the player] actually helped him to zeroing into a number in a scenario where he doesn't have to settle for eligible cash-out amount, but rather the full winning from the fulfilled all-winning combo.

I had initially done only a quick sum of the winning betslips, that's why I used round numbers throughout the thread. Your highlighting of the slips and calculating the value to the cent helped confirm my numbers.

And I repeat myself, but I'm highly thankful for your involvement. By contacting them and having them present 0 evidence of wrongdoing and offering a settlement (even though an unsatisfactory one) I think my case is much stronger than before. It's also helpful for everyone from bitcointalk (provided they're willing to read pages of text).

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on August 05, 2025, 04:57:33 PM

Quote

I was offered 160k out of 410k which is about 40%. Since you characterized the deal as fair, I'd like to hear your train of thoughts on this case if possible.

I don't think any thoughts matter anymore. The deal was offered to you and you denied, case seems close to me from this community.

That's a fair point, it does not seem like we'll reach an agreement through bitcointalk. However, considering your relations with Betfury, aren't you worried that this case will reflect poorly on them?

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on August 05, 2025, 06:31:46 PM

As their campaign manager when I saw the case (it looked a bit odd to me too), I talked to the management and asked them to co-operate and resolve the case. They gave a brief to me and it made sense.

Do you not think that it would benefit Betfury to make their case public? As in to be specific about what rules were broken?

Quote from: LEVSKI7 on August 05, 2025, 11:46:47 PM

This is legal absurdity, the judges will be holding their heads listening to this nonsense
In principle, technical errors are also paid, such as instead of the real coefficient 1.01, 101 is written, and 101 is paid. There have been such court decisions and decisions of regulators in the USA and Australia.
similar case
I remember perfectly where I was on June 23, 2017 – I was shopping. I got a bet notification on my smartphone: Federer vs. Khachanov. The minimum winning odds for Federer were 1.26, but 888sport was offering odds of 8.50.
With such a large discrepancy, this was an extremely profitable bet. So I placed a bet of €100. Just as I saw that 888sport accepted my bet, I placed another €100. I tried to place a third bet to complete the €300 I wanted to place, but 888sport left it as “pending approval”.
I was not wrong, a few minutes later my bets showed up as canceled.
It's time to hire a lawyer.
The judges' decision implies the belief that:
1 – The cancellation of the bet was an abuse
2– Risks should be divided between the bookmaker and the bettor
3 – Bookmakers cannot make unilateral decisions regarding the application of their rules
4– If there was an error on the bookmaker's part, it cannot be passed on to the user
Therefore, in short, the plaintiff claims that the defendant cannot refuse to pay out his winning bets by canceling them unilaterally and unreasonably (if there was any mistake on his part, it cannot be transferred to the consumer) and on the basis of such an alleged clause, which is unfair and therefore null and void, as contested by the plaintiff, under the General Commercial Conditions Act (the "rule in question" being that of the accession) and the General Consumer and Consumers Act, and in conclusion asks that the claim be condemned to pay the aforementioned 750 for each bet, together with its legal interests.
https://winnerodds.com/how-i-beat-888sport-in-court-and-got-paid/

To be completely fair I believe it's okay for a sportsbook to cancel bets in retrospect provided there's an obvious error attached to it (completely wrong odds, mistaken start time etc.). However, there are no such errors here.

Quote from: Rating Place on August 06, 2025, 01:24:44 AM

And the lines weren't even off in the dplay case. They have to stop pretending they have secret evidence. The OP was profiled so that was already done. Holy said they were watching him for a long time. I'll stick with they needed 10 minutes, not days, hours or months for this free-roll.

holy quote

Quote

They have their eyes on you for so long for the technique you're utilizing

This does seem incriminating for the casino if they "had their eyes on me for so long" and only decided to do something about it when I won a large amount of money in a short timespan.