Quote from: holydarkness on August 13, 2025, 04:30:12 PM

Quote

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.

Hmm... I'll have to chip in as the words being quoted and used to mislead is my post here.

The original and exact words on the post, if not snipped and fashioned in such way, will tell you that the one having an eye on you is the provider, not the casino.

Quote from: holydarkness on July 21, 2025, 08:26:47 PM

[...]
and I regret to inform you that based from the information they provided, not only they have that right, from 6.1., but also further emphasized with an enough reason to void [so the call was not done baselessly or out of grudge or other malicious intent] as per 6.4.3., unfair practice, which was flagged by their provider.

They have their eyes on you for so long for the technique you're utilizing, and I'll do the courtesy of not divulging to the public of your betting strategy that they and their provider deemed as a violation. But given they've set their eyes on you for so long, that the provider flag you as a very high risk bettor, I believe you've repeat this more than plenty and fully know what you're doing.
[...]

I read the post in between the time I handle IRL matters and re-read the paragraph and attempting it from different angle to understand how someone could misinterpret it as the casino having their eyes on you. Granted, due to the numerous use of "they" and "their" and the equivalent pronouns, the who do what can probably be misunderstood. But who I referred in that post, I think, in that exact construction instead of snipped very partially, indicates who I refer to being watching you.

From my perspective the sportsbook/casino and it's odds provider are the same thing. By making an account and placing a bet I enter into a contractual obligation with the casino, I don't even know or care if a 3rd party is providing them with the odds.

The fact of the matter remains that the sporsbook decided to do a rug-pull once I started winning a lot. As you and they say, I've "utilized the same technique for so long" but they only decided to do something about it when I won a lot of parleys.

Quote from: holydarkness on August 13, 2025, 04:30:12 PM

I even asked a second "neutral" opinion,

Hope that clarifies things.

I don't know why we're involving random LLM's as if they're relevant to anything.

Quote from: holydarkness on August 14, 2025, 08:47:29 AM

Quote from: Rating Place on August 13, 2025, 10:58:08 PM

1. You didn't say bets gone final. Of course they can cancel bets that haven't started. The whole argument rests on games gone final.
2. You failed to mention parlays. Once again they can cancel individual bets. Parlays are a series of independent events.
3. Somehow you brought in odds provider again. You may have to go further up the food chain if you believe your 5 sources saying odds providers make financial decisions as far as payouts.
4. Your whole post is misinformation which is why ChatGPT and Gemini gave different answers when the point was brought up that the bets went final.

@ahoy - you're correct that I embarrass myself here. $300,000 is involved. I see it as a very simple case. You seem to think that too. holy is hurting the player's case with misinformation. Every time he posts something against the player, I get caught up.

.ahoy

Quote

Betfury should pay what's owed, plain and simple. You can't just cancel parleys after 75% of the games are won.

[...]

Do uhh... you read the whole thread? Because yes, you embarass yourself here by pitching in and jumping in and sprouting words that seemingly should not necessarily be asked or clarified if you read the posts on this thread carefully. The whole arguments on this thread is about the game gone final but the provider flagged player for an abuse. And that made them cancel the bets as per their ToS.

I covered it in my post that you snipped very partially, just above and below the part of the post that'll say something different, suppose you didnt fashioned it that way,

Quote from: holydarkness on July 21, 2025, 08:26:47 PM

[...]

Personally, upon hearing their rebuttal, I think that's a clever strategy and there's nothing wrong about it. But unfortunately, upon doing my own DD of raking their ToS amongst several other things, it does match the point they prohibit on 6.4.3.

[...]

And yes, I brought the provider's call again, because apparently and in reality, that's what happened all this time. Have you read most of the threads on this board? There are dozens of cases where the root is the provider's call. Yet you still insist that their flag upon player bears no impact? The provider made the call and the casino respect the call. Some casino that doesn't agree and think the call is too harsh even created their own risk assessment team just to make a rebuttal to the casino.

And again yes, not only you embarass yourself on this thread by sprouting nonsense, you also hurting the player's case here. Not holy. How exactly does holy hurt the case? Or giving misinformation? The misinformation that you kept pushing that I do, was never proven. On the contrary, it shows you twisted words and being the one giving misinformation yourself. And holy hurt the case? holy? I asked them to reconsider three times [if I remember correctly], and ultimately went to settlement, of which player refused for uhh... I'll say his own reason.

How you hurting this case? Well, thanks to your image from AI, that now stays in public for the record to whom interested in the matter, even the AI pointed out where OP's case is rightfully cancelled by ToS. Here, I highlighted your own image for rebuttal:

Mind to be fair and neutral and type a question where the prompt "there was no cheating" replaced with "the provider flagged me as suspicious bettor"? Because, that's the known narrative here, that the provider flagged OP, so not sure why you prompt with "there was no cheating".

But don't bother, I'm doing it for you. Here, exact prompt as yours, with "there was no cheating" replaced with "the provider flagged me as suspicious bettor":

You keep accusing me of things such as "unfair practices", "bets made in fraudulent error", "cheating or account fraud", "suspicious betting patterns", "violating rules" where the only thing the casino said was "high risk" without providing a sliver of evidence.