[Table] Withdrawal Fees and Withdrawal Amounts on Crypto Casinos

[Pmalek]

I took a look at the incident that involves Fairlay and the player, newfish1 who got his money confiscated.
Here is my opinion:

On the player newfish1

When I saw the leagues he wagered significant sums on, I was immediately suspicious of him. Having a suspicion alone is not enough to label someone a match fixer but a hunch can be enough for a more thorough investigation. There are certain leagues and competitions that have stood out and have been associated with fraudulent activities. Among those are Scandinavian low-level football, Romanian low-division matches, Bulgarian second and third leagues, Ukrainian low-level football, Turkish amateur football, less-known ATP Challengers, second division handball in several European countries, table tennis, etc.

When big money is involved with such leagues, red alarms turn on.

The player claimed that he didn't do anything wrong, and that big wagers are a normal thing for him. He provided several examples of sports events where he wagered significant sums, like a Usyk boxing match. All that could be true, but it can also be the perfect cover. If someone has information on fixed matches and bets on them, they will want to fill their betting history with legitimate bets as well, and not just suspicious ones.

Having said that, it has not been proven that newfish1 is part of an illegal betting syndicate. He may or may not be. It's possible that he knows someone from the involved clubs who told him about the matches or he found out in some other way. It can also be that he scans for betting opportunities in such leagues.

What I find suspicious is that he disappeared all of a sudden and never came back. It was also suggested that he release his betting activity during the same period as the alleged fixed matches took place to show what kind of matches he bets on. He didn't do that. He also never wrote about his betting style, something that was also a possibility.

On Fairlay:

Fairlay created a topic and were interested in finding an arbitrator to mediate between the player and themselves. That didn't go so well. Two candidates, efialtis and holydarkness both questioned Fairlay's conduct and made it look as they wouldn't be on the side of the bookie in case they were selected to be the arbitrators. Fairlay then changed their mind and claimed to have used the services of an independent company. This was a bad move that the community rightly didn't like. At the same time, you have to understand Fairlay's position. Why would they agree to work with an arbitrator where the chances seem high that the decision would be against them. They said so themselves. efialtis more than holydarkness.

I didn't like that Fairlay took it upon themselves to tag a game as fixed based on their own opinion. Why allow for such high stakes in a low-division tournament where the chances for match fixing are much higher? And since you've already allowed it, then pay out the winnings. If newfish1 had bet the other way and lost, you would have gladly taken your commissions and nothing would have happened.

Now that we are aware that there is an investigation on matches involving low-league Finnish clubs, they did the right thing not paying the player until the investigation is closed at least. A person can find themselves in a situation like this by chance by betting on the wrong match, without having done anything wrong. But something tells me this isn't the case.

On efialtis and holydarkness:

I think both of you made (un)intentional mistakes. You shouldn't have voiced your opinions on the case until one or both of you were chosen as the arbitrators. That is, if you wanted to be arbitrators. That, I think, is why Fairlay changed their mind, and you can't blame them. If Fairlay had selected you and you ruled in favor of the player and the bookie decided to ignore your decision, they would have looked very guilty and seem to be in the wrong.

Will I remove Fairlay from the list?

I will not. For now. I have no idea how far the investigation by the Finnish football association has come. The fact alone that there is an investigation shows that the bookie was, in my opinion, right to be suspicious of the player. The player's disappearance is also a bad sign. Why isn't he defending himself any longer, and why has he stopped communicating with the bookie (according to what Fairlay has said)? 

Additionally, cryptofrka, un_rank, and efialtis wrote negative feedback on Fairlay's profile. Again, in my opinion, those are no longer valid. At worst, Fairlay deserves neutral tags but not negative ones if the games involving those clubs are under suspicion to have been manipulated.

[un_rank]

Additionally, ... un_rank, and ... wrote negative feedback on Fairlay's profile. Again, in my opinion, those are no longer valid. At worst, Fairlay deserves neutral tags but not negative ones if the games involving those clubs are under suspicion to have been manipulated.

I will respond here to reiterate the reason for my decision to give a negative tag.

It was completely ridiculous to not grade a bet due to video evidence of the game looking suspicious. I have watched many games in the top flight leagues and seen so many really terrible plays which can sometimes be mistaken for a deliberate act to cost your team the game. If bookies are allowed to refuse to grade a bet and ban a player indefinitely because of a hunch, it sets a bad precedence and gives one more reason players can be cheated out based on the discretion of the website.

As Fairplay mentioned in their own thread, other bookies settled bets on that game even though they had their suspicion (the latter part could be just speculation). They did this because suspicion is not proof. There was not enough evidence at the time to support their decision.

Their conduct in the thread was also very unprofessional. It was clear they were looking to get their decision validated and not a fair arbitration. Their choice of mediators telling them they were in the wrong should normally be enough to get you to reconsider your decision, it was not in this case.

New report of an investigation does not change their early conduct and haste action, so I will not be factoring it into my tag. New players should be warned that they can have their funds frozen and their account blocked because of a hunch.
I will visit the original thread to check what is the latest update on the case.

- Jay -

[cryptofrka]

Additionally, cryptofrka, un_rank, and efialtis wrote negative feedback on Fairlay's profile. Again, in my opinion, those are no longer valid. At worst, Fairlay deserves neutral tags but not negative ones if the games involving those clubs are under suspicion to have been manipulated.

No way I'm doing this, it is blatant manipulation by the bookie.
Who allows huge bets on amateur football? Only those that think they can gain something out of it or those that are clueless about the business - and you don't want to deal with either one of those.
Other bookies settled those bets - as far as I know Fairlay is the only one that did not and they surely aren't the market leaders other companies follow in such cases.

Fairlay treated the case in a wrong way since the beginning, we did try to make them understand, they did not communicate well or care at all.
To begin with, they were the ones to allow the player to make a big bet on a shady market. If you take the bet, you honor the bet - end of discussion.

My red is here to stay, at least for now. I will however say that I do believe I've been unfair to Fairlay in a way - many others deserve to be redtagged as well, but I don't usually red the accusation boards. Somebody notified me to read this one and that's why Fairlay is the only one that I've tagged so far.

[Pmalek]

It was completely ridiculous to not grade a bet due to video evidence of the game looking suspicious. I have watched many games in the top flight leagues and seen so many really terrible plays which can sometimes be mistaken for a deliberate act to cost your team the game. If bookies are allowed to refuse to grade a bet and ban a player indefinitely because of a hunch, it sets a bad precedence and gives one more reason players can be cheated out based on the discretion of the website.

I would completely agree with you if it wasn't for the last couple of posts in the thread. The official investigation that the Finnish Football Association started against multiple low-division clubs, including those the player and alleged victim bet on, shows that their hunch was right. It sheds a completely different light on the whole matter. While I was going through the 12 pages of the discussion, I was slightly siding with the player, thinking he was right. The end of the case shows me that he wasn't.

As Fairplay mentioned in their own thread, other bookies settled bets on that game even though they had their suspicion (the latter part could be just speculation). They did this because suspicion is not proof. There was not enough evidence at the time to support their decision.

Following the majority and doing what the majority (in this case bookies) does doesn't mean that you are right. 19/20 bookies could have made the wrong decision settling those bets and only 1 could have been right.

I will visit the original thread to check what is the latest update on the case.

There is nothing new if you followed it to the end last year. Just a media report confirming that an investigation has started.

[notblox1]

No way I'm doing this, it is blatant manipulation by the bookie.
Who allows huge bets on amateur football? Only those that think they can gain something out of it or those that are clueless about the business - and you don't want to deal with either one of those.

My question is why allowing such games for betting in the first place, if they know they are risky and can be fixed?
Dont allow low leagues on your platform and you wont have problems like this.

I never used Fairlay casino and I dont know if they broke anything from their ToC, or their customer did it.
But if they accepted the bet than they should pay the customer.

[Haunebu]

My question is why allowing such games for betting in the first place, if they know they are risky and can be fixed?
Dont allow low leagues on your platform and you wont have problems like this.

I never used Fairlay casino and I dont know if they broke anything from their ToC, or their customer did it.
But if they accepted the bet than they should pay the customer.

Your points in this case are completely understandable and I tend to usually side with the small guy over the big corporations myself, but the problem in this case is that the alleged victim was a cheater.

Fairlay made an entire mess out of that whole scandal for sure, but they still don't deserve a red tag for protecting themselves from a confirmed cheater.

Recently, Shuffle got red tagged in a similar manner, but got it removed after the accuser weirdly clarified that he was wrong.

[Rating Place]

I also followed the Fairlay case. efialtis, holydarkness and the Sports Integrity Unit all had the same evidence. The sports integrity unit said the games were 100% fixed. All shops cancel fixed games including exchanges when there's a significant amount involved. Sometimes they will let the small bets go but this case involved $70,000. Fairlay had agreed to abide by the decision of an arbitor. Fairlay/Bitcoin-Betting are the safest shops at bitcointalk. They have 8 figures in cold storage. https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/1EV8YeieYEZ7iksGT9jS7KdcbE12pk4FwZ

TS interviewed Francesco Baranca, a sports integrity expert, who follows live betting markets during sports events to try and identify manipulation.

He says that one club's performances this season can only be explained by criminal involvement.

"The numbers are so absurd that there's no doubt about the manipulation," said Baranca. "The games are one hundred percent manipulated, you can't explain them any other way."

https://yle.fi/a/74-20102346

If you do decide to add them the fees are .1 mBTC for BTC withdrawals and gas for ETH.

[Pmalek]

My question is why allowing such games for betting in the first place, if they know they are risky and can be fixed?

That's what many people have asked and rightly so. There should definitely be a staking limit on markets where the possibility of manipulation is higher. Then, even if cheaters and match fixers try to do their dirty business at the bookie/exchange, they wouldn't be able to profit and cheat as much.

Also, do they still allow high-stakes bets to be placed on that league and other low-division Finnish leagues, including the clubs involved in the scandal?

I also followed the Fairlay case. efialtis, holydarkness and the Sports Integrity Unit all had the same evidence. The sports integrity unit said the games were 100% fixed.

What evidence? Are you talking about the Finnish article mentioning that there is an on-going investigation? That's not evidence. That's just a media report that may be based on actual evidence but we (the public) haven't seen that evidence.

If you do decide to add them the fees are .1 mBTC for BTC withdrawals and gas for ETH.

Thanks. At the moment I won't be adding Bitcoin Betting to the table.

[Rating Place]

My question is why allowing such games for betting in the first place, if they know they are risky and can be fixed?

That's what many people have asked and rightly so. There should definitely be a staking limit on markets where the possibility of manipulation is higher. Then, even if cheaters and match fixers try to do their dirty business at the bookie/exchange, they wouldn't be able to profit and cheat as much.

Also, do they still allow high-stakes bets to be placed on that league and other low-division Finnish leagues, including the clubs involved in the scandal?

I also followed the Fairlay case. efialtis, holydarkness and the Sports Integrity Unit all had the same evidence. The sports integrity unit said the games were 100% fixed.

What evidence? Are you talking about the Finnish article mentioning that there is an on-going investigation? That's not evidence. That's just a media report that may be based on actual evidence but we (the public) haven't seen that evidence.

If you do decide to add them the fees are .1 mBTC for BTC withdrawals and gas for ETH.

Thanks. At the moment I won't be adding Bitcoin Betting to the table.

The evidence was shown in Fairlay's/Bitcoin-Betting's first post. Anyone that bets sports knew immediately that the matches were fixed. I'd assume that the people that put negative trust are casino players, not sports bettors. We all, including the Gambling Integrity Unit, saw the same evidence. Fairlay's been here over 10 years with no problems. I'm not trying to persuade you to add them to your list. I look at your thread now and then and just wanted to add to what happened.

[cryptofrka]

The evidence was shown in Fairlay's/Bitcoin-Betting's first post. Anyone that bets sports knew immediately that the matches were fixed. I'd assume that the people that put negative trust are casino players, not sports bettors. We all, including the Gambling Integrity Unit, saw the same evidence. Fairlay's been here over 10 years with no problems. I'm not trying to persuade you to add them to your list. I look at your thread now and then and just wanted to add to what happened.

I am exclusively a sports bettor. You, however, probably are not.

Finnish 1st Division is basically amateur. 2nd Division is fully amateur. 5th Division? Yeah, they probably fix games for beer, or just randomly drop points when they get wasted a night before the game.
And then comes Fairlay and Rating Place investigation, supported by experts - Finnish 5th Division game is fixed? Oh no, what a scandal! Congrats fellas, Mulder and Scully ain't got shit on you.

Solution? Don't offer those markets. If you offer them for huge amounts - then I guess you're a clueless sports bookie. Or one with an agenda.

[Rating Place]

The evidence was shown in Fairlay's/Bitcoin-Betting's first post. Anyone that bets sports knew immediately that the matches were fixed. I'd assume that the people that put negative trust are casino players, not sports bettors. We all, including the Gambling Integrity Unit, saw the same evidence. Fairlay's been here over 10 years with no problems. I'm not trying to persuade you to add them to your list. I look at your thread now and then and just wanted to add to what happened.

I am exclusively a sports bettor. You, however, probably are not.

Finnish 1st Division is basically amateur. 2nd Division is fully amateur. 5th Division? Yeah, they probably fix games for beer, or just randomly drop points when they get wasted a night before the game.
And then comes Fairlay and Rating Place investigation, supported by experts - Finnish 5th Division game is fixed? Oh no, what a scandal! Congrats fellas, Mulder and Scully ain't got shit on you.

Solution? Don't offer those markets. If you offer them for huge amounts - then I guess you're a clueless sports bookie. Or one with an agenda.

It's one match in 10 years. They aren't going to take the markets down because of one match. Betfair and every book here has cancelled wagers because of match fixing. They aren't taking down those offerings on tennis, ping pong, esports and all the other markets that have been fixed including low level soccer. It's all tracked by gambling regulatory commissions and sent to sports books.

[cryptofrka]

It's one match in 10 years. They aren't going to take the markets down because of one match. Betfair and every book here has cancelled wagers because of match fixing. They aren't taking down those offerings on tennis, ping pong, esports and all the other markets that have been fixed including low level soccer. It's all tracked by gambling regulatory commissions and sent to sports books.

You're not really following.

A bookie will maybe have Finnish lower league football, or Czech Republic Table Tennis Healthy Grandpas tournament for 70+ year old players, but you'll be able to bet 5$ on it.
There's a reason behind it, because if you allow 100$ bets 5 people will give 200$ total to Grandpa 1 to lose to Grandpa 2.

If you allow big bets on amateur markets, you're an amateur bookie. Or, as I said already, a bookie with an agenda.

I'm done with this discussion.

[Rating Place]

It's one match in 10 years. They aren't going to take the markets down because of one match. Betfair and every book here has cancelled wagers because of match fixing. They aren't taking down those offerings on tennis, ping pong, esports and all the other markets that have been fixed including low level soccer. It's all tracked by gambling regulatory commissions and sent to sports books.

You're not really following.

A bookie will maybe have Finnish lower league football, or Czech Republic Table Tennis Healthy Grandpas tournament for 70+ year old players, but you'll be able to bet 5$ on it.
There's a reason behind it, because if you allow 100$ bets 5 people will give 200$ total to Grandpa 1 to lose to Grandpa 2.

If you allow big bets on amateur markets, you're an amateur bookie. Or, as I said already, a bookie with an agenda.

I'm done with this discussion.

The players involved with real names and teams are all in the thread. Fairlay/Bitcoin-Betting are not amateurs. They deal with Pinnacle and a lot of professional bettors. Fairlay said they would donate the $70,000 if someone here at BCT would arbitrate and the player was ruled to be guilty. No one wanted to do it. Fairlay then presented it to the Gambling Integrity Unit and they said the player was 100% guilty of match fixing.

[notblox1]

What evidence? Are you talking about the Finnish article mentioning that there is an on-going investigation? That's not evidence. That's just a media report that may be based on actual evidence but we (the public) haven't seen that evidence.

Please check his post history and feedback on this member and than ignore the rat.
I dont see any of his posts for a long time.

I am exclusively a sports bettor. You, however, probably are not.

He is exclusive asking money from casinos to put them higher in his rat list
Dont expect this guy to understand anything you are saying, I learned that few years ago.

[Rating Place]

What evidence? Are you talking about the Finnish article mentioning that there is an on-going investigation? That's not evidence. That's just a media report that may be based on actual evidence but we (the public) haven't seen that evidence.

Please check his post history and feedback on this member and than ignore the rat.
I dont see any of his posts for a long time.

I am exclusively a sports bettor. You, however, probably are not.

He is exclusive asking money from casinos to put them higher in his rat list
Dont expect this guy to understand anything you are saying, I learned that few years ago.

Go ahead and check my posting feedback. The negative feedback is from you. No one has ever said anything bad about me other than those paid by Sportsbet and I've been here 11 years. You started stalking me years ago after I put up a rating for Sportsbet. I don't take money from anyone and rarely bump the rating list so I don't know why anyone would pay me. You get paid by Sportsbet and bash other books and those criticizing Sportsbet. Stick to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks and stalking. If you want to talk about ratings disagreements, go to my thread.

[Pmalek]

The evidence was shown in Fairlay's/Bitcoin-Betting's first post. Anyone that bets sports knew immediately that the matches were fixed.

I don't view their first post with the videos and explanations of moments from matches as evidence either. But good on them if they saw that and believed something was wrong. An investigation is underway that will hopefully shed more light on the events.

I'm not trying to persuade you to add them to your list.

Fairlay was already on the list. My reason for checking that case involving allegedly fixed matches was because I was considering removing them after seeing the negative feedback on their profile. After I did, I decided not to. At the same time, I am not going to add Bitcoin-Betting to the table, but the reason for that has got nothing to do with the investigation of the Finnish league matches.

[Rating Place]

The evidence was shown in Fairlay's/Bitcoin-Betting's first post. Anyone that bets sports knew immediately that the matches were fixed.

I don't view their first post with the videos and explanations of moments from matches as evidence either. But good on them if they saw that and believed something was wrong. An investigation is underway that will hopefully shed more light on the events.

I'm not trying to persuade you to add them to your list.

Fairlay was already on the list. My reason for checking that case involving allegedly fixed matches was because I was considering removing them after seeing the negative feedback on their profile. After I did, I decided not to. At the same time, I am not going to add Bitcoin-Betting to the table, but the reason for that has got nothing to do with the investigation of the Finnish league matches.

My last post on this. The Gambling Integrity Unit stated that the matches were 100% fixed. Fairlay agreed to abide by their decision. No book waits a year for a case to conclude in a court of law. There were only 4 Ukrainian players on the team and all 4 were making obvious mistakes.Going from memory there was one match where one of the 4 players kicked the ball in his own goal. Another got a red card. The goal keeper let up easy goals and I forget what the 4th did. All 4 pulled similar stunts in multiple matches. Live bets were made just prior to these things happening. No book is going to let this go for $70k.

Fairlay quotes

We were contacted by another party who was working for a Betting Integrity Unit and hopefully can help us find the best arbitrator with the necessary experience

nor any further information shared until these investigations are completed.

The investigations have concluded.

[3kpk3]

My last post on this. The Gambling Integrity Unit stated that the matches were 100% fixed. Fairlay agreed to abide by their decision. No book waits a year for a case to conclude in a court of law. There were only 4 Ukrainian players on the team and all 4 were making obvious mistakes.Going from memory there was one match where one of the 4 players kicked the ball in his own goal. Another got a red card. The goal keeper let up easy goals and I forget what the 4th did. All 4 pulled similar stunts in multiple matches. Live bets were made just prior to these things happening. No book is going to let this go for $70k.

The investigations have concluded.

There is no need to drag this matter out any further people. Pmalek has made it pretty clear that he still trusts Fairlay which is why it is still on the table while Bitcoin-Betting won't be added.

It's just sad to see one of very few proper crypto betting exchanges get caught up in such big controversies within this forum in my opinion.

[Pmalek]

There is no need to drag this matter out any further people.

Yes, thank you. They will remain on the list. For now. It can change in the future. If someone finds out new details about the case we discussed or a similar one, they are free to bring it to my attention.
I will now take some time to look at Freebitco.in and the reasons for their negative feedback. From what I have seen so far, it looks as I will kick them off the list. I want to check a few more threads, though.

[Haunebu]

I will now take some time to look at Freebitco.in and the reasons for their negative feedback. From what I have seen so far, it looks as I will kick them off the list. I want to check a few more threads, though.

Freebitco has fallen a long, long way and are proven scammers now sadly for a plethora of reasons. They are slowly and steadily getting banned in different countries from around the world.

I advise removing it from the list asap since it would take a miracle for them to recover from such a disastrous state honestly speaking.