FORTUNEJACK.COM |10+ Years of Trust and Experience in Crypto Gambling

[cryptofrka]

If we're going to talk business, all major sportsbooks void odds for being wrong. I've even had Pinnacle void for odds errors before. Sometimes as a gesture of goodwill, they'll pay errors, but everyone betting on errors shouldn't be upset if they end up being voided, especially if it's voided before the match starts.

You can argue the ethics of this all you want, but that's just how the industry is. I think the industry would be very different if books were forced to pay errors - margins would be way higher so the average player loses more at the expense of a few smart people writing bots to immediately find errors and max bet them.

Exactly. I'm using this case to try and have a much broader discussion about betting in general, while remaining on point here as well. Ethics are important and we should be demanding more from our bookies, especially the ones we have some sort of connection with. After all, playing the ethics card did get us at least that 25% bonus FJ is offering now - they were adamant their decision was final and no compensation would be given.
Smart people do write bots, bots do take advantage of arbitrage opportunities, but then these accounts get betting restrictions - and the betting site wins again. Not fair once more, because I never heard anyone getting restricted while losing big.

I don't agree that margins can be much higher, 1.85 for a 50/50 bet is already way too low. We started from 1.95, some sites still have it (FJ has among the best and fairest odds for these markets), the bookies are again bleeding us as much as they can. Just because we still pay up.

___________________________________

Regarding this case, it's not just that the bet is being voided. They actually told him he can cash out, so it's an error on an error. He also thought he had an open bet - if it was voided instantly, he would have bet elsewhere.

Although I do stand on the side of the player, I can also see that FJ is trying to sort this out. Their TOC protects them so I appreciate them still deciding to offer something - no matter my general opinion that these types of errors should be solved at a cost of the betting provider, not the user.

[EpicChamp]

I'm also not exactly sure why the first option was given when FJ is already offering at least 25% of the initial bet. IMO the poll should have only featured these 3 options.

Anyways, doesn't really matter. Would love to see what the majority of people think in the next few days.

[kotajikikox]

I'm also not exactly sure why the first option was given when FJ is already offering at least 25% of the initial bet. IMO the poll should have only featured these 3 options.

maybe to have at least clarity in regards to Majority decision , adding that 25% option ( while FortuneJack has already offering this) will Give the communities Heart and position on the matter.


In this case People in forum and not only those winner must be including in the voting because this will serve an example and basis in the coming same situation as we Knew that Not Only FJ experience this same scenario as in the past or even recently this has happen and been posted above .

I'm Sure that FortuneJack and the winners will come to best result , that everyone will be happy and also will Give Light in the futures event.

Good to See that Again FJ and the Team is proving their sincerity about issues and troubles they are facing to be resolved.

                ___ Snip ___

Everything must be given chances mate , Let FJ resolve this issue with the help of the winners , and also of our community here in gambling section.

[ronaldo40]

i'm sure fj will fix this they've been in the gambling world for a long time and they never disappoint customers

[FortuneJack]

Pool for turning back what you own to someone ? I never seen such an idiot move.
That's like asking other people will they tag you if you scam
What an idiots could start that kind of pool Turn what you own to the poor guy, thanks god other people will be aware of your shady moves.
What an auto goal with that pool I love it

-
will not argue that much - we respect the opinions of our community members.

They've as well suggested adding that as an option to be voted equally.

I guess you don't really understand how powerful they could be in terms of support and generally speaking improving the casino as a whole.

[mu_enrico]

I just received another 40x + 1x "bonus appetit."
Challenge accepted! Last time I could only salvage 1.7 mBTC in the end, lol.

[tokeweed]

I kinda agree with you here. I never said companies should payout odds errors because the community wants it. I said I feel they should do it because in my view, you either run a legitimate business or you do not run a business at all. Bookies spend millions of dollars to get the odds right - to get the margins exactly where they want them to lure us in and make the odds look better than they are. That's their business, so I also feel that they should not hide themselves behind TOC when they get it wrong. They should pay out, not just FJ, any bookie that has made a mistake. Why? Because we're not in kindergarden and because that's how businesses should be run. If I put my apartments on Booking.com for 15 instead of 150 dollars, I would not be able to cancel it and say 'sorry'.

If we're going to talk business, all major sportsbooks void odds for being wrong. I've even had Pinnacle void for odds errors before. Sometimes as a gesture of goodwill, they'll pay errors, but everyone betting on errors shouldn't be upset if they end up being voided, especially if it's voided before the match starts.

You can argue the ethics of this all you want, but that's just how the industry is. I think the industry would be very different if books were forced to pay errors - margins would be way higher so the average player loses more at the expense of a few smart people writing bots to immediately find errors and max bet them.

Yup.. I’ve also said the same thing a few pages back.  The books will always cancel your bet if the line is stale.  I’ve had mine canceled before at a fiat book.

And yes, it’s industry standard.  But I guess most people in crypto are new to sports betting?  Another thing I noticed in the space is wanting to play higher limits but doesn’t want to go thru KYC.

[FortuneJack]

I just received another 40x + 1x "bonus appetit."
Challenge accepted! Last time I could only salvage 1.7 mBTC in the end, lol.

-
Good luck with the bonus - I'm sure you can make it happen and pass the previous milestone of 1.7 mBTC. 

[FortuneJack]

Thanks for ignoring my question Your silence is the best answer.

-
Already answered the same question.

Will clarify once again - it's not the community deciding whether we're wrong or true, this is the way of us reporting their feedback publicly (As their feedback is crucial for us as a company in general - we will be considering things mentioned within the poll and a thread)

That's it, pretty much - the decision will be noted afterwards.

[EpicChamp]

What frustrates me the most about what happened is that a bookie cannot just cancel a bet because odds drop against their favor.

There are endless cases where various players get llisted at let's say 6.0 odds and then few hours later drop to 3.0, or start at 5.0 and then drop to 2.5, or 3.0 and drop to 1.5-2, or start at 2.5 and then drop below 1.5 - I can go on & on. If I got in at the initial odds, you can say I got a little lucky, but it is not my fault nor is it "unfair" to the bookie, because they are the ones who decided to post these odds themselves and make them official for several hours.

It is certainly not a "technical" error either and is not uncommon at all, especially when the odds were universally the same at all times across the whole industry. Therefore, bookies never cancel bets because of these types of situations. I've never had this happen to me before, and I don't know anyone else who did either.

My case is no different than the example I used above.

Much like on the other hand, a player could have been first opened at 2.5 and then dropped to 4.0, or started at 3.0 and then dropped to 5.0 or gotten significantly worse odds/better valuation a few hours later, which also happens a lot and is not uncommon.

So if I bet on a player at 2.5 and then a few hours later he's at 4.0-5.0 - that feels "unfair" to me and now I feel bummed that I didn't wait a bit longer, but it is 100% my fault & responsibility for placing the bet at the given 2.5 odds, because at that timeI thought it made sense & was worth the risk, so I cannot blame anyone else but myself for placing the bet.

And surely the bookie is not going to cancel the match because of this situation either, because it doesn't make any sense. So I have to suck it up and accept the fact that now odds are different and I can't do anything about it other than hope my player wins so I can win the bet at 2.5x.

At the end of the day, it all balances out at the end - sometimes you get in more favorable odds and sometimes they're less favorable, but the bottom line is that no bets get canceled because of a change of odds, especially when they are universally the same across all bookies.

So you have to respect the odds and fair play at all times, and not go canceling around bets just because the odds changed against you - this happens too many times to count, yet no reputable bookie ever cancels a bet because of that.

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That's pretty much the last thing I have to say about this, and I hope most of the community members agree with me as well. 

[Hhampuz]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

I'm not quoting anyone out of context, go on my own thread and read what he wrote towards the end of page 2.

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=5304432.20

[SATWAT]

Even DarkStart_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

I'm not going to speak for DarkStar_ but I'm fairly confident in saying that you continuing to quote him out of context  in this crusade of yours will probably just make it so that nobody will ever comment anything that could even be considered slightly in your favor. You have your way with words and stories - stick to that and stop dragging others in by quoting them out of context. Thanks!

I am new and have no right to talk about any thing but posting here just for salute to this person because I read few posts and these quotes now feeling serious headache but he is doing this all constantly without any problem great work from this person even all matter is already solved but he still want to do some more with few quotes really poor from him because if you are in gambling you have to be for all options just lurking and posting shit is never been solution for any thing.

[DarkStar_]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

[LEVSKI7]

Punters in the US took FanDuel to the cleaners after capitalising on a computer glitch that offered in-play odds of 750/1 on an NFL game. The Denver Broncos should have been priced at just 1/6 to beat the Oakland Raiders ahead of a 36-yard field goal, but the computer threw up astronomical odds instead. FanDuel, owned by Paddy Power Betfair, initially refused to pay out, but a disgruntled punter called Anthony Prince went public and the operator eventually relented after consulting with the state’s gambling regulators. Prince bet $110, so he scooped a tidy $82,000. “A 36-yard field goal has approximately an 85% chance of success, so the astronomical odds offered on something highly likely to occur was very obviously a pricing error,” said the firm. “These kinds of issues are rare, but they do happen. We want sports betting to be fun. So, this one’s on the house. We are paying out these erroneous tickets and wish the lucky customers well.” Read ESPN for more on this.

That should be the case, but the regulator must impose it by law

[DarkStar_]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

[EpicChamp]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this  

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start.  

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

[FortuneJack]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start. 

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards. 

[deadley]

Even DarkStar_ said this himself and wrote that "there's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them."

That was a generalized statement about cancelling bets. My current stance based on the information I have is that FJ are justified in cancelling your bet. Quote this 

And this is a general/regular situation and is no different from any other swings of odds that happens every day in all sports either, so what you said is true and applies to this case as well.

Kinda funny that you're trying to take it back now lol

Anyways, I'm not going to be saying anything more about this case unless someone has a question about what happened and needs clarification on something.

I've said this to you before: 2.6 instantly dropping to 1.3 is not normal line movement. Had it slowly dropped from 2.6 to 1.3, I would definitely side with you. One shows a likely odds error, the other shows natural line movement.

I stand behind my statement for natural line movement. I disagree that sportsbooks should be forced to pay odds errors, as this would likely end up hurting legitimate players through increased vig across the board.

Here is the full context behind my post:

FJ as a sportsbook has every right to cancel any match for any reason so long as they do it before it starts. You are not entitled to something because of it - had they done it when the game started or afterwards then you'd have a case here but as of now there is nothing. Bet was canceled BEFORE it was being played, what happened after matters not.

They might have the right to do it, but that doesn't make them not shady if they unjustifiably cancelled a bet. There's a reason sportsbooks don't cancel all bets that have had line movement against them.

I was disagreeing with Hhampuz's statement that they have every right to cancel any match for any reason.

According to their own reasoning, they canceled my bet because odds dropped from 2.6 to 1.7 - this was literally their official statement & reasoning on that day (no mention of a technical error at all either). That is 100% not that uncommon and I've seen it happen countless of times. Using any other reason at this point goes against the only piece of evidence I have on my end, according to their official statement, for why they decided to cancel my bet right before the match was about to start. 

But even if let's say he did drop below 1.7 at the time or they used a lower number in their email, I've still seen this happen many times from around the 2.5 mark, yet bets never got canceled because of that for me or anyone I know. And specifically for this match, other major betting sites did not cancel this bet for their users when he dropped to 1.7 or lower from 2.6+. Anything between 1.3 to 3.0 is within the "competitive" range where its hard to predict an exact result and upsets happen all the time. Therefore, to me that makes perfect sense because there was no clear favorite going into this match, and I still don't get why De Jong dropped to 1.7 or below - but it's not up to me to decide. But even with the new drop, he was still within the "competitive range" of 1.3-3.0 odds.

Not to mention how there have been far more extreme cases, where odds dropped from 5.0+ to less than 1.5 (due to a clear technical error), and yet reputable bookies with the good morals & ethics still awarded those who bet on 5.0+ their full win due to a mistake that was made on their end, despite that kind of humongeous difference - much like LEVSKI7 shared on here many times. (Although they could have easily said no and had a much stronger reasoning for not doing so considering the obvious technical error).

Meanwhile my situation is nothing like that or nearly as bad, yet FJ isn't willing to honor my bet as a win (at least as of right now, I hope that changes soon, esp if most people agree with me as well)

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this case - everything that I had to say I already said previously, or was said by fellow community members.

You can read a summary of what everyone had to say about this on page 463 if you want a TLDR and not read through everything.

Let's just wait a bit and see the results of the poll.

***BTW, I just went through our email exchange from the end of November, and the only thing FJ was saying is that just because I partially cashed out ~50% of my bet for 0.1397 BTC, that they thought it was reasonable or acceptable to cancel the remainder 50% of my bet simply because of that alone - NO mention about any technical errors in any of their follow-up emails whatsoever.

In other words, they claimed that they decided to cancel my bet only because I partially cashed out a similar amount as my initial bet and that's it - no actual/real reasoning behind it other than this vague explanation.*** - I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a complete joke of a reason.

Basically, it looks like their "ACTUAL" reason + intention was to cancel my bet because I got ~0.1397 BTC back from the partial cashout (aka why they actually canceled the bet) - but their OFFICIAL reason was the "drop of odds from 2.6. to 1.7" (aka what they want me to believe for why they canceled it) - which even then is not allowed nor is a valid reason to cancel a bet. But to claim that they canceled my bet only because I did a partial cashout (regardless of the amount) is a complete joke and unacceptable. And once again, there was absolutely no mention of any technical reason for this cancellation during our email exchange.

-
Community is aware of the case, I think there's no need to repeat the same all over again as it doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Let's patiently wait for the end of the voting and close the case afterwards. 

Do you know, how easily this voting can be manipulated by mulites? This is not the way to close the case by voting and it will be hurt you in future too in every dispute.