I deposited $250 at the casino, then placed sports bets, winning 12, losing six, and losing two. Of these bets, there were also two doubles and four bets on the World Championship. A few days ago, I placed a $602 withdrawal. The withdrawal was immediately approved, but the funds didn't appear in my wallet for several hours. I contacted support, who informed me that their provider had decided to cancel my bets because they were placed on a weak line. What was the line's weakness? Are you retroactively deciding what's weak and what isn't? I bet on what I wanted, and you suggest I bet on it. Please note that this complaint only appeared after I submitted the withdrawal request, suggesting that the casino apparently simply doesn't want to pay out, citing the provider's fault. I immediately warned the casino that I would withdraw my deposit as they suggested, but then I would start filing disputes on resources I knew. Especially since when I checked the same Bitcointalk, I was surprised to find several identical complaints from other users. A dubious coincidence, don't you think? I'm attaching screenshots of the correspondence and my bets.

Login: leparda

Quote from: holydarkness on July 15, 2026, 06:17:16 PM

This shall be the beginning of the binding mediation on CH, where the verdict shall be honored by all the parties involved.

Ok, so now both parties have agreed to solve the matter in another mediation site, which is common practice not only on the forum but in general in gambling. I don't see any problem with that.

Quote from: Rating Place on July 16, 2026, 02:51:43 AM

Weak line is the exact same thing as a value bet.

It's the same BS, just called something else.

To me its plain - IF there is a weak line(whatever the hell that may be), that is supplied by betby and the player has nothing to do with it.

Why are the players put at fault ? Betby should be the one to compensate whatever amounts the sites lose due to these 'weak lines'

Quote from: Mahdirakib on July 15, 2026, 03:32:01 AM

'Little Mouse' is the owner of ContestHunters, but he doesn't take care of the dispute there. 'holydarkness' work as an independent mediator in ContestHunters. He is a trusted and reliable person in that case, which has been proven by his activity on the scam accusation board here over the past few years. I think you also respect the judgement of 'holydarkness' which he makes by looking into the facts and evidence.

My understanding is somewhat different to how you have presented it.

I appreciate him trying to expedite scam accusations to a conclusion by building relationships with online casino staff and also for relaying information between casinos and the claimants by acting a middle-man. If he is shown information/data by a casino and chooses to ask questions of the claimant or decides to remove himself from the equation as he has seen evidence he cannot elaborate on (but is in his opinion sufficient for him to no longer be involved) then that is all part of his attempts to help scam accusations reach some sort of conclusion.

If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.

This opens up various allegations as well as questions of possible interference, conflict of interest and much more. No claimant should be going down this route on the Contest Hunters website.  

Quote from: Mahdirakib on July 15, 2026, 03:32:01 AM

It was 'Little Mouse' who asked him to look into the feedback.

I am glad to read this because AB de Royse777 was extremely vague when he stated he was "notified" about the negative tag.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on July 15, 2026, 10:26:15 AM

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on July 15, 2026, 10:10:46 AM

About the Scam Accusation, I think it is BS not to pay people their profits because they are value betting or whatever they are calling it. I made money playing poker for a long time precisely by value betting.

It's 100% bullshit. They offer the bet, they took the money, they look for a way not to pay. This community has just accepted whatever a casino says without really pushing back. If a casino doesn't want a players business, pay them and close their account seems like the correct action.

As I have stated dozens of times in multiple threads, a decent number of accusations in this section are bs, but there are accusations that I deem proper. Value betting IMO is 1 of the accusations I've seen that I disagree with, but the community has accepted it so I haven't tagged casinos using this excuse as scam operations. Maybe that needs to change?

Quote from: LoyceV on July 15, 2026, 07:49:25 AM

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on July 13, 2026, 09:07:39 AM

a business who is spending $6,000 to $8,000 a month on their campaigns with this community

Royse has only ever cared about his pocket, not the community.

You hit the nail on the head and community sentiment should have changed 2 years ago on value betting aka weak or soft lines.

Quote from: JollyGood on July 16, 2026, 06:40:20 PM

If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.

You miss the part where both parties agreed to that decision being binding. In other words, the two parties involved agree that holydarkness should resolve the dilemma, but you, from a position of moral superiority, come along and tell us how wrong that is.

How about this?

You think this $601 case is really bad, the same way as this $117 case, but you haven't written a single word in this €30,000 case ($34312,77).

Quote from: Don Pedro Dinero on July 17, 2026, 09:24:27 AM

Quote from: JollyGood on July 16, 2026, 06:40:20 PM

If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.

You miss the part where both parties agreed to that decision being binding. In other words, the two parties involved agree that holydarkness should resolve the dilemma, but you, from a position of moral superiority, come along and tell us how wrong that is.

How about this?

You think this $601 case is really bad, the same way as this $117 case, but you haven't written a single word in this €30,000 case ($34312,77).

This has been going on for 2 years. Holydarkness has been agreeing that sportsbooks can steal money for making a good bet. The forum has protected his actions. Members are now starting to agree that if a book takes a bet, they should pay the bet if it wins.

These cases are easy to arbitrate and need no evidence from the player. The arbitrator needs to determine if a book has to pay winners of good bets. That’s all he needs to do.

Normally the arbitrator would look at the bets and line history to see if it’s a bad line. If a player makes a bet at +8 points when the line should be -8 points, that’s a mistake that should be voided as a bad line. Weak line bets should be paid.

Quote from: JollyGood on July 16, 2026, 06:40:20 PM

[...]
If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.
[...]

Ooff... that'll be a bit awkward situation here, given my binding decision after reading all the evidence is to get Degen to pay the difference between amount disputed and what's already returned as initial deposit, amounted in 352 USD.

I mean, we're really close to conflict resolution attempt here, it's sad if that has to go down the drain because a situation where I become the conciliator [it's the term they used there, not "adjudicator"] is not supported. I personally don't mind, less stress for me. The work I do, to read all the evidences and piecing the puzzles, are no different than what I do here, but [if I may borrow the closest euphemism, though in no way I am saying I wear it] heavy is the head that wear the crown.

Being the one who make the final call is not easy, especially if you're neutral, because other people from the other side who doesn't like the call, or simply have a personal agenda, can use that verdict-making as a way to attack me.

So... yeah, a bit awkward here, given my call is to reimburse the difference, and if it has to go down the drain, as I don't think same offer can be achieved elsewhere. And sure, we can get people to not use CH to resolve Degen's cases [or any other casinos cases], and when the casino is silent or non-responsive, we can tag and flag them. But will that be a satisfactory outcome to the player who lose their fund? If they may choose to get refunded through a binding decision or to get the casino tagged because escalation to a specific ADR is frowned upon, I wonder what would they choose.

Edit: above is the exact perfect example of people with personal agenda. Now imagine I have to make calls sorrounded by these... things [sorry, has no other word to describe the being that justify their existence], or even the neutrals.

In no way my post is intended to attack you personally, rather your opinion, as in an attempt to engage in open-minded discussion. Just because I become a concilliator in a platform that happened to be owned by a CM, doesn't mean I can walk freely in the park. It's the Sword of Damocles situation for me, everybody can read, everybody can judge, and there has to be little to zero margin of error in my verdict.

Do you see the situation now? Heavy is the head that wear the crown, with Damocles's sword hanging above.

Quote from: holydarkness on July 17, 2026, 04:21:24 PM

Quote from: JollyGood on July 16, 2026, 06:40:20 PM

[...]
If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.
[...]

Ooff... that'll be a bit awkward situation here, given my binding decision after reading all the evidence is to get Degen to pay the difference between amount disputed and what's already returned as initial deposit, amounted in 352 USD.

JollyGood, your "support" doesn't mean anything in this matter. You have no say when two parties in conflict agree to have a third party resolve the issue.

Good job, holydarkness. This case is closed to the satisfaction of the player. Can we move on to the next one?

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on July 17, 2026, 05:16:24 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on July 17, 2026, 04:21:24 PM

Quote from: JollyGood on July 16, 2026, 06:40:20 PM

[...]
If we are now talking about him reviewing the evidence from both parties on a website that was created by a campaign manager and him being the sole adjudicator and the one that has the final say on whether the claimant was scammed or the casino was not guilty, that is a different matter altogether. I appreciate him being the middle-man in an attempt at conflict resolution but I do not support any one member (regardless of who that member might be) to make a decision that is binding between both parties.
[...]

Ooff... that'll be a bit awkward situation here, given my binding decision after reading all the evidence is to get Degen to pay the difference between amount disputed and what's already returned as initial deposit, amounted in 352 USD.

JollyGood, your "support" doesn't mean anything in this matter. You have no say when two parties in conflict agree to have a third party resolve the issue.

Good job, holydarkness. This case is closed to the satisfaction of the player. Can we move on to the next one?

I think that Jolly Good makes a lot of great points. I don’t think that giving a book a discount is success. It’s just helping books to continue a predatory practice where they don’t pay full price to winners but take 100% from losers.

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on July 17, 2026, 05:16:24 PM

[...]
Good job, holydarkness. This case is closed to the satisfaction of the player. Can we move on to the next one?

We can try that once the next one escalate to CH, but the next one doesn't seem to listen, so I can't touch his case. Degen is currently funneling their complaints to CH [for reference, and just in case anyone want to have a dick measuring contest, Rollbit is funneling their complaints to their very own internal team and no outsider party can take a look or argue their decision], I can only close a case and draw a verdict once I see the counter-evidence that Degen provide there.

Quote from: Rating Place on July 17, 2026, 05:19:56 PM

I think that Jolly Good makes a lot of great points. I don’t think that giving a book a discount is success. It’s just helping books to continue a predatory practice where they don’t pay full price to winners but take 100% from losers.

A discount, you fucking mongoloid? Not only can't you read, but you can't do math either. So it's no surprise you're spouting that nonsense.

leparda, Hello. Change the thread title to . I've removed the tag for now, and I think holydarkness's help was far more significant in this matter than his fee. I don't think I'd have the patience to act as a peacemaker and would probably prefer to find another job altogether.

I'll hold off on tagging for a while due to other newly opened fraud allegations, so Degen can resolve them without feeling pressured.

Quote from: inspace on July 17, 2026, 05:53:34 PM

leparda, Hello. Change the thread title to . I've removed the tag for now, and I think holydarkness's help was far more significant in this matter than his fee. I don't think I'd have the patience to act as a peacemaker and would probably prefer to find another job altogether.

I'll hold off on tagging for a while due to other newly opened fraud allegations, so Degen can resolve them without feeling pressured.

I... uhh... urmmm... not paid, just so that it's crystal clear that I am neutral and totally run non-profit, so my "fee" is only my weekly sig. campaign. As always, just like years of bridging cases here. The fee for being concilliator was offered at the dawn of CH, but I rejected them because I want to stay neutral. Of which [in a joking tone] I need to start to considering to finally take fee, as the fine print doesn't say I will be sucked into a drama and headache-inducing forum politics.

Quote from: Rating Place on July 17, 2026, 04:26:04 PM

what evidence did you need to look at?

Its irrelevant. Per usual, HD does not owe you a response. I don't know why you still fail to understand this. Stop trying to throw wrenches in his cases.

Quote from: inspace on July 17, 2026, 05:53:34 PM

leparda, Hello. Change the thread title to .

He should probably wait until the money is in his pocket.

Quote from: inspace on July 17, 2026, 05:53:34 PM

I've removed the tag for now, and I think holydarkness's help was far more significant in this matter than his fee. I don't think I'd have the patience to act as a peacemaker and would probably prefer to find another job altogether.

These are all valid points that some people seem to take for granted.

Quote from: holydarkness on July 17, 2026, 04:21:24 PM

Edit: above is the exact perfect example of people with personal agenda. Now imagine I have to make calls sorrounded by these... things [sorry, has no other word to describe the being that justify their existence], or even the neutrals.

In no way my post is intended to attack you personally, rather your opinion, as in an attempt to engage in open-minded discussion. Just because I become a concilliator in a platform that happened to be owned by a CM, doesn't mean I can walk freely in the park. It's the Sword of Damocles situation for me, everybody can read, everybody can judge, and there has to be little to zero margin of error in my verdict.

Do you see the situation now? Heavy is the head that wear the crown, with Damocles's sword hanging above.

I clearly see the picture and understand your predicament.

In essence, what has been proposed is that in any matter of dispute if both/all parties agree to binding terms (with you as the sole arbiter) then that should be the end of the matter. I am entitled to an opinion just as every other member of the forum and my opinion was expressed and has not changed.

With the effort you are putting in towards addressing many scam accusations in the forum (and you have been for a very long time), I wish you success in your endeavours.

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on July 17, 2026, 05:16:24 PM

JollyGood, your "support" doesn't mean anything in this matter. You have no say when two parties in conflict agree to have a third party resolve the issue.

I have an opinion and I expressed it. For those that wish to arbitrate in this manner and then accept a binding resolution will go ahead regardless of whether I support it or not.

Quote from: Rating Place on July 17, 2026, 05:19:56 PM

I think that Jolly Good makes a lot of great points. I don’t think that giving a book a discount is success. It’s just helping books to continue a predatory practice where they don’t pay full price to winners but take 100% from losers.

What on earth is this post about?

Kindly enlighten me, what are the good points that I made about discounts and books?

I made no comment that would have warranted an incoherent reply from you. Maybe you overlooked something, are you sure you referenced the right person in your post?