Just stop. I wanted to clear it up since he's most likely a value bettor. If you just learned some definitions such as value bettor, free roll and the role of the odds provider you would stop wrongly ruling against sports bettors and could make immediate rulings.
I asked a simple question since you brought it up. Let's not make this another 3 month case. Get the OPs betting history and it'll tell the whole story.
Again, sweet summer baby, point us out to a sentence where I ruled against the sports bettor, a.k.a. the player. All I do is explaining to the player and the overseers what that AML as well as multi-accounting counter-accusation means, as that is the points that OP asked in his opening post.
So, stop ranting like a five years old and clear things up [as you wished it] by pointing us out to the part where I ruled against the player.
Every time I ask a simple question based on your statement you throw a tantrum with childish names and the thread gets derailed.
You ruled against the players in XYes because you didn’t understand value betting.
You ruled against the current Bet Fury case because you don’t understand free roll. The case should have been closed there. Bet Fury would have kept losing so they should pay winnings.
You’ve ruled against players for years because you said odds providers make the call on payouts.
Let’s now stick to this case. Get the players betting history. It’ll show if he’s a money launderer.