Orbit paid out 2k euros without my knowledge to an account known only to them

[littlekona]

the lay would of only been that after the 6th when Birds upped it to 5-0
very suspicious backs and lay prices


I agree with OPTI that you may of just shipped to a friend Innocent enough not knowing maybe but Betfair caught it and it is what it is unfortunatly.

[Optional]

Yes, all my bets, including Bet No. 48753079 were made in play.




I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet.

https://ibb.co/1ZkmCS4

https://ibb.co/XpKG3nx

https://ibb.co/7z8kzTR

https://ibb.co/ChJF3qq

https://ibb.co/r35TFJx

https://ibb.co/1QMhCC0

I did not make any withdrawal, only 2 deposits. When I ordered a €500 withdrawal, my account was blocked.

I had problems withdrawing funds from sports betting, because here all betting exchanges are banned and there are only a few (~6) local bookmakers on the market who have purchased a licence and are charging a 12% fee on the stake.

I spent money from bets in stores (with currency conversion) using a neteller card.

I hope they have not just seen the off market figure and assumed too much. BIA makes it sound like it was them that noticed it themselves.

Please fill out our Sportsbook Complaint form, and then forward the email confirmation copy to cases@sportsbookreview.com and I will reach out to OrbitX for you.

[Skurwol]

I hope they have not just seen the off market figure and assumed too much. BIA makes it sound like it was them that noticed it themselves.

Please fill out our Sportsbook Complaint form, and then forward the email confirmation copy to cases@sportsbookreview.com and I will reach out to OrbitX for you.

I filled out the Sportsbook Complaint on the day this thread was published.

I just sent an email confirmation copy to the cases@sportsbookreview.com

I added some new information and screenshots to the message.

[SportsBettor74]

that 9.2 odds is imposible pre game or live. they where winning the whole way from the first inn if I am reading it right Baltimore ML on the 24th.

Thanks for this clarification.

So we know that the 9.2 odds were completely off and therefore there is a possible allegation of funds passing here.

But the puzzle is not completely solved.

Let's say that the OP has a colleague who put up those "bad moneyline odds " on Betfair so that the OP could grab it and thereby the colleague funds passes to the OP.

How on earth could these two collaborators guarantee that the OP would be the one to snap it up? Surely there were 100s of bettors and traders on that game - and anyone could have snapped up those euros at 9.20. If anyone but the OP had snapped it up then the colleague has just said goodbye to the 158.9 euros he laid.

In addition - I still find it hard to believe that 2 collaborators would go through these risky hoops for a mere 158.9 euros when as DTM has stated there are far easier ways of transferring cash from A to B. I am also surprised that a company like Betfair is investing resources in policing "funds passing" for such an insignificant sum.

I am not convinced we have seen all the evidence here. Perhaps there are other Orioles v Washington Nationals bets we are not being shown by the OP.

If the ONLY wager at issue is the one we have seen then for the reasons above I just cannot see how Betfair could have made this call against the OP.

If SBR could ask Betfair to give more details to us re: this specific and controversial case I am sure that all here would appreciate it.

It still does not make sense to me.

[Alfie White]

Funds passers usually hunt for obscure markets - just for the reason explained above, so that ONLY THEM can make trade on it and pass the funds in that manner. ML bets for funds passing is basically unheard of, completely agree with SportsBettor above.

OP, how do you know the funds are withdrawn to Neteller, do you have any proof of that (OrbitX wallet possibly)?

[SportsBettor74]

Funds passers usually hunt for obscure markets - just for the reason explained above, so that ONLY THEM can make trade on it and pass the funds in that manner. ML bets for funds passing is basically unheard of, completely agree with SportsBettor above.

OP, how do you know the funds are withdrawn to Neteller, do you have any proof of that (OrbitX wallet possibly)?

Yes - if it was an obscure market where the OP could snap up before anyone else noticed then this would very much support a case of funds passing.

But it was definitely money line - see this posted by the OP: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

We have seen 3 Orioles v Washington Nationals bets posted by the OP. 2 were for literally pennies - it is this bet posted above here that forms the accusation of funds passing.

As Alfie states it is impossible to funds pass on a major market like moneyline.


Let's sum up:

1. The OP has been accused of funds passing as per the email we have seen (screen shot) https://ibb.co/PCTVgBz

2. The event was Orioles v Washington Nationals as per the email we have seen (screen shot) https://ibb.co/ZmhTNWr

3. Of the 3 wagers pertaining to this game - only the one posted here could be at issue https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

4. That wager netted the OP 158.89 euros

5. There are better, less convoluted ways to pass 158.9 euros from A to B

6. It is surprising to see that Betfair invest resources in policing such a small sum for funds passing

7. The alleged funds passing was made on the moneyline market

8. It is impossible to funds pass on the moneyline market for a major sports event with 100s of traders on it


Conclusion:

Either:

1. The OP has NOT shown us all his Orioles v Washington National Bets - he funds passed on an obscure market and has not shared this here

OR

2. Betfair has made a mistake - - and if this is the case then this should concern all Betfair users here (I am very concerned)

I wonder which of 1 or 2 above is right?

I think Betfair ought to engage with the readers here pronto and explain what has happened here.

[laur88]

Good afternoon, I also had a problem with the Orbit exchange with Betinasia. I haven’t solved my question for 6 months already. I wrote a letter 20 to Curacao. They wrote this.my balance was also reset



Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for your message.
The GCB has recently been tasked with the licensing for and the supervision of the online gaming sector on behalf of the Minister of Finance. As such, the GCB has the task of supervising compliance with the regulations under or pursuant to the National Ordinance on Offshore Games of Hazard (Landsverordening buitengaatse hazardspelen, PB 1993, no. 63).

We are currently in the process of setting up our complaints policy and procedure. As soon as we will formally start handling complaints, we will announce this on our website.

We kindly point out in advance that the GCB will not investigate all complaints. For example, the GCB does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes between the complainant and the accused party and to award damages.

Only if a complaint indicates a violation of the applicable regulations, the supervisory task of the GCB entails that this will be investigated further.

We suggest that at all times you seek legal advice for any claims you may have vis-à-vis the license holder or other party or parties.

Groetend,
Best regards,
Saludos,


Curaçao Gaming Control Board
Emancipatie Boulevard Dominico F. “Don” Martina 23 | Willemstad | CURAÇAO
tel:+599 (9) 737-2299 | Fax: +599 (9) 737-2621
Email: : : info@gcb.cw
Web: www.gamingcontrolcuracao.org

[laur88]

Good afternoon, I also had a problem with the Orbit exchange with Betinasia. I haven’t solved my question for 6 months already. I wrote a letter 20 to Curacao. They wrote this.my balance was also reset



Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for your message.
The GCB has recently been tasked with the licensing for and the supervision of the online gaming sector on behalf of the Minister of Finance. As such, the GCB has the task of supervising compliance with the regulations under or pursuant to the National Ordinance on Offshore Games of Hazard (Landsverordening buitengaatse hazardspelen, PB 1993, no. 63).

We are currently in the process of setting up our complaints policy and procedure. As soon as we will formally start handling complaints, we will announce this on our website.

We kindly point out in advance that the GCB will not investigate all complaints. For example, the GCB does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes between the complainant and the accused party and to award damages.

Only if a complaint indicates a violation of the applicable regulations, the supervisory task of the GCB entails that this will be investigated further.

We suggest that at all times you seek legal advice for any claims you may have vis-à-vis the license holder or other party or parties.

Groetend,
Best regards,
Saludos,


Curaçao Gaming Control Board
Emancipatie Boulevard Dominico F. “Don” Martina 23 | Willemstad | CURAÇAO
tel:+599 (9) 737-2299 | Fax: +599 (9) 737-2621
Email: : : info@gcb.cw
Web: www.gamingcontrolcuracao.org

[littlekona]

Yes - if it was an obscure market where the OP could snap up before anyone else noticed then this would very much support a case of funds passing.

But it was definitely money line - see this posted by the OP: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

We have seen 3 Orioles v Washington Nationals bets posted by the OP. 2 were for literally pennies - it is this bet posted above here that forms the accusation of funds passing.

As Alfie states it is impossible to funds pass on a major market like moneyline.


Let's sum up:

1. The OP has been accused of funds passing as per the email we have seen (screen shot) https://ibb.co/PCTVgBz

2. The event was Orioles v Washington Nationals as per the email we have seen (screen shot) https://ibb.co/ZmhTNWr

3. Of the 3 wagers pertaining to this game - only the one posted here could be at issue https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

4. That wager netted the OP 158.89 euros

5. There are better, less convoluted ways to pass 158.9 euros from A to B

6. It is surprising to see that Betfair invest resources in policing such a small sum for funds passing

7. The alleged funds passing was made on the moneyline market

8. It is impossible to funds pass on the moneyline market for a major sports event with 100s of traders on it


Conclusion:

Either:

1. The OP has NOT shown us all his Orioles v Washington National Bets - he funds passed on an obscure market and has not shared this here

OR

2. Betfair has made a mistake - - and if this is the case then this should concern all Betfair users here (I am very concerned)

I wonder which of 1 or 2 above is right?

I think Betfair ought to engage with the readers here pronto and explain what has happened here.

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."

This should be the opposite did OP mean Lay. The ticket posted shows back @9.2 which this analysis makes no sence since it a lay bet process is described here.

[SportsBettor74]

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."
This should be the opposite did OP mean Lay. The ticket posted shows back @9.2 which this analysis makes no sence since it a lay bet process is described here.

Yes - I would just ignore these kinds of statements and let the screenshots of the correspondence and the wagers speak for themselves. The OP has posted a lot of irrelevant screenshots and statements here even after it was clear that the match at issue was Orioles v Washington Nationals and no other.

His statement above makes no sense - agreed.


The screenshot shows a "back" bet - i.e. he took a line that was posted by another user. That is it - pure and simple.

[SportsBettor74]

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."

This should be the opposite did OP mean Lay. The ticket posted shows back @9.2 which this analysis makes no sence since it a lay bet process is described here.

LittleKona - I have just had a thought.

Let's say it is true - that the OP really did Lay that position at 9.2 as he has kind of stated above. Then someone has to take those odds.

Well - he has given us a screenshot of the person who took those odds!! It is here in black and white: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

How could the OP have access to the accounts that both laid the odds AND accepted (backed) the odds?

This now makes complete sense - and I now suspect that the OP controlled both accounts. This would be funds passing.

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."

We know who the "someone" was - it was the OP and he shows us the screenshot here: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

It is possible that the OP got confused and meant to show us the LAY positions from his Account 1 - but instead accidentally showed us his BACK positions from Account 2

The one part of the puzzle that still evades me: How could the OP know that it was his account that would snap up the offer at 9.20 and not some random stranger? This is still unexplained but we are getting closer to the answer.

If 9.20 were very bad odds then the OP could guarantee that it would be him that snapped it up. But we think that 9.20 odds for this game were actually very good odds and therefore would be taken by any of the 100s of traders on that game.

[Skurwol]

Thanks for this clarification.

So we know that the 9.2 odds were completely off and therefore there is a possible allegation of funds passing here.

But the puzzle is not completely solved.

Let's say that the OP has a colleague who put up those "bad moneyline odds " on Betfair so that the OP could grab it and thereby the colleague funds passes to the OP.

How on earth could these two collaborators guarantee that the OP would be the one to snap it up? Surely there were 100s of bettors and traders on that game - and anyone could have snapped up those euros at 9.20. If anyone but the OP had snapped it up then the colleague has just said goodbye to the 158.9 euros he laid.

In addition - I still find it hard to believe that 2 collaborators would go through these risky hoops for a mere 158.9 euros when as DTM has stated there are far easier ways of transferring cash from A to B. I am also surprised that a company like Betfair is investing resources in policing "funds passing" for such an insignificant sum.

I am not convinced we have seen all the evidence here. Perhaps there are other Orioles v Washington Nationals bets we are not being shown by the OP.

If the ONLY wager at issue is the one we have seen then for the reasons above I just cannot see how Betfair could have made this call against the OP.

If SBR could ask Betfair to give more details to us re: this specific and controversial case I am sure that all here would appreciate it.

It still does not make sense to me.

Full view of bets on market Washington Nationals - Baltimore Orioles

https://ibb.co/r3hj9Nb

https://ibb.co/bd80z7N

Funds passers usually hunt for obscure markets - just for the reason explained above, so that ONLY THEM can make trade on it and pass the funds in that manner. ML bets for funds passing is basically unheard of, completely agree with SportsBettor above.

OP, how do you know the funds are withdrawn to Neteller, do you have any proof of that (OrbitX wallet possibly)?

Proof of payment to BIA using Neteller

https://ibb.co/YLz6GSh

LittleKona - I have just had a thought.

Let's say it is true - that the OP really did Lay that position at 9.2 as he has kind of stated above. Then someone has to take those odds.

Well - he has given us a screenshot of the person who took those odds!! It is here in black and white: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

How could the OP have access to the accounts that both laid the odds AND accepted (backed) the odds?

This now makes complete sense - and I now suspect that the OP controlled both accounts. This would be funds passing.

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."

We know who the "someone" was - it was the OP and he shows us the screenshot here: https://ibb.co/FhnR2vd

It is possible that the OP got confused and meant to show us the LAY positions from his Account 1 - but instead accidentally showed us his BACK positions from Account 2

The one part of the puzzle that still evades me: How could the OP know that it was his account that would snap up the offer at 9.20 and not some random stranger? This is still unexplained but we are getting closer to the answer.

If 9.20 were very bad odds then the OP could guarantee that it would be him that snapped it up. But we think that 9.20 odds for this game were actually very good odds and therefore would be taken by any of the 100s of traders on that game.

There was probably no Lay bet there, because I placed a Back @9.2 bet, so probably someone accepted the Back bet @~1.12 or Lay @9.2

All screenshots come from one account because another I do not have

"I noticed a back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles, who was winning 6:1. I decided to outbid this offer with a Back bet @12 at Baltimore Orioles, my bid has been outbid by Back @11.5, so I lowered my to @11 and so on until the degree @9.2 someone accepted my bet."

Perhaps before, I mis described it.

I noticed that someone placed a Back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles that appeared on the red field, so the odds of ~0.03 / 0.04 on the Washington Nationals, who lost 6-1 or 5-0, were possible. I decided to raise this bet with a Back bet @12, because I knew it was a very favorable offer. My bet was immediately outbid by @11.5, so I reduced my to @11 and so several times I bid with another person. I remember that after reducing my bet to @9.2 it was quickly accepted. This, too, can be the cause.

[SportsBettor74]

Full view of bets on market Washington Nationals - Baltimore Orioles

https://ibb.co/r3hj9Nb

https://ibb.co/bd80z7N

Proof of payment to BIA using Neteller

https://ibb.co/YLz6GSh

There was probably no Lay bet there, because I placed a Back @9.2 bet, so probably someone accepted the Back bet @~1.12 or Lay @9.2

All screenshots come from one account because another I do not have




Perhaps before, I mis described it.

I noticed that someone placed a Back @25 bet on the Baltimore Orioles that appeared on the red field, so the odds of ~0.03 / 0.04 on the Washington Nationals, who lost 6-1 or 5-0, were possible. I decided to raise this bet with a Back bet @12, because I knew it was a very favorable offer. My bet was immediately outbid by @11.5, so I reduced my to @11 and so several times I bid with another person. I remember that after reducing my bet to @9.2 it was quickly accepted. This, too, can be the cause.

"I remember that after reducing my bet to @9.2 it was quickly accepted. This, too, can be the cause." - so to be clear you are saying you laid the position at 9.20 and you did this because you wanted another punter to back that position - right?


You must be saying you laid the position because that is what would happen if you reduced to 9.20 and it was accepted - right?

[littlekona]

"I remember that after reducing my bet to @9.2 it was quickly accepted. This, too, can be the cause." - so to be clear you are saying you laid the position at 9.20 and you did this because you wanted another punter to back that position - right?


You must be saying you laid the position because that is what would happen if you reduced to 9.20 and it was accepted - right?

So what this seems like is that OP was the receiver of the funds passed based on odds of 9.2 that he backed.

[Skurwol]

"I remember that after reducing my bet to @9.2 it was quickly accepted. This, too, can be the cause." - so to be clear you are saying you laid the position at 9.20 and you did this because you wanted another punter to back that position - right?


You must be saying you laid the position because that is what would happen if you reduced to 9.20 and it was accepted - right?

I placed a back bet @9.2 on the Baltimore Orioles so the market appeared available to play the odds back @~1.12 on the Washington Nationals or lay the Baltimore Orioles at @9.2. The market was dead for a few seconds. I wanted my offer to be the first to be accepted.

I reduced the Baltimore Orioles back bet to @9.2 because someone else reduced his bet to @9.4 / 9.6

[SportsBettor74]

So what this seems like is that OP was the receiver of the funds passed based on odds of 9.2 that he backed.

Yes that is exactly what it seems like. The OP's English is poor so there is just a slight possibility that he is somehow not expressing himself well.

But overall it looks like the OP has admitted to laying at 9.20 (admitted multiple times) and he obviously backed at 9.20 because we have a screenshot of it.

Betfair has accused him of funds passing. It looks like he did.

What a shame. For only 150 euros he loses his 2000 balance AND his account.

I think he did funds pass - but I think the Betfair penalty is too harsh. It is not proportionate to the total sum of the offence and (presumably) it was a one-off as the OP was betting happily until the offence was logged.

A better penalty would be: OP loses his 150 euros associated with the bad transaction. OP is allowed to withdraw his 2000. OP is barred.

If I were the OP/SBR I would be arguing this line - admit the wrongdoing but argue that the penalty is disproportionate.


I still do not understand how he funds passed on the moneyline market at 9.20 if these were good/competitive odds at the time - any other user could have snapped up his offer at 9.20.

[SportsBettor74]

I placed a back bet @9.2 on the Baltimore Orioles so the market appeared available to play the odds back @~1.12 on the Washington Nationals or lay the Baltimore Orioles at @9.2. The market was dead for a few seconds. I wanted my offer to be the first to be accepted.

I reduced the Baltimore Orioles back bet to @9.2 because someone else reduced his bet to @9.4 / 9.6

Sorry your statements are just not clear. I am unsure if you are being deliberately evasive or not.

Question: Did you Lay at 9.20 (Yes/No)

Question: Did you back at 9.20 (Yes/No)


Use google translate to translate your original text to English then translate it back to your native language to check. If the re-translation is not perfect then use different words until the 2 x translations work.

With the advent of google translate there is no excuse for your unclear, ambiguous and non-sensical posts. Sort it out if you want analysis and help from this forum.


It happens that the possibility of being falsely accused of "funds passing" at Betfair is a hot topic for a number of readers here - because it seems that habitually we will jump on other users' errors at Betfair when we see them - so there are many here interested in the outcome of this thread and of the exact facts pertaining to this thread and your case.

Take the time to be clear here using tools like Google translate properly if you want support and analysis here.

[infotimbo]

Yes that is exactly what it seems like. The OP's English is poor so there is just a slight possibility that he is somehow not expressing himself well.
But overall it looks like the OP has admitted to laying at 9.20 (admitted multiple times)

that's not the way I understand it. What he said is, that he posted a (back) bet on Baltimore Orioles to win ML @12, and then reduced the odds until it was matched @9.2 - which fits with what we can see on the screenshots.

With his statement "the market appeared available to play the odds back @~1.12" he means to say that there was no other action on that market at that point. The @9.2 he posted showed up as first option to lay Baltimore, and consequently a @1.12 as best available odds to back Washington.

Someone else then took that @1.12 on Washington to win ML - either by mistake, or as Betfair claims, to pass funds - meaning his bet won at obscure odds.

[SportsBettor74]

that's not the way I understand it. What he said is, that he posted a (back) bet on Baltimore Orioles to win ML @12, and then reduced the odds until it was matched @9.2 - which fits with what we can see on the screenshots.

With his statement "the market appeared available to play the odds back @~1.12" he means to say that there was no other action on that market at that point. The @9.2 he posted showed up as first option to lay Baltimore, and consequently a @1.12 as best available odds to back Washington.

Someone else then took that @1.12 on Washington to win ML - either by mistake, or as Betfair claims, to pass funds - meaning his bet won at obscure odds.

What is your overall opinion based on what you see here in this thread?

- OP Funds Passed

- OP did not funds pass and was just unlucky with a strange ML market on a baseball game that strangely had little action (and wrong odds) ; OP is falsely accused

- Uncertain

?

[infotimbo]

I really don't know, but would tend to say that he was just lucky to catch a moment with no action (not too uncommon, I just checked some Baseball ML live markets, and there are always moments like that) and someone confused one side with the other.

We also need to keep in mind, that we are talking about relatively small amounts of money here. Often Orbit accounts have multiplied liquidity (between 2.5 and 10, afaik), so what he won here could very well be just a $50 bet on Betfair someone else put on the wrong side.

Edit: and if this was about fund passing, then there also would have been no reason at all to lower the odds from @12 to @9.2. The other guy could have just taken the initial price

[SportsBettor74]

I really don't know, but would tend to say that he was just lucky to catch a moment with no action (not too uncommon, I just checked some Baseball ML live markets, and there are always moments like that) and someone confused one side with the other.

We also need to keep in mind, that we are talking about relatively small amounts of money here. Often Orbit accounts have multiplied liquidity (between 2.5 and 10, afaik), so what he won here could very well be just a $50 bet someone else put on the wrong side.

Yes I do agree.

Earlier the OP posted 30 pages of bets and he is clearly a small time player. He is investing time to place bets where he lays 100 at 1.04 and loses 4 euros. The total number of his bets means that he must have invested hours and hours into this for sweet FA return.

It is hard to believe he is some kind of sophisticated funds passer and yet Betfair have said exactly this.

I am sorry that the OP has (as things stand) lost 2K - but there is a bigger question here - we need to know under what circumstances Betfair will accuse you of funds passing.

In my time I have on maybe 20 occasions taken advantage of some sucker on Betfair who posts a "reverse line" or just bad odds. This mainly happens on the obscure sports and not the big US sports.

I will take that action each and every time.

The issue is that we simply do not know when Betfair will throw out the "funds passing" accusation.

In earlier posts Optional has suggested that Betfair will look for some other kind of connection between the two accounts and/or Betfair will look for multiple instances of supposed funds passing between A and B. This gives some confidence although all it would take would be for you to take the same sucker's bad odds twice and you are open to the accusation of funds passing by Betfair.

This OP is so small time (see his bets risking 4 euros x 30 pages worth) that if the ONLY evidence is that one ONE occasion he took a bad line and made 150 euros) that if he can be accused then we all can.

This is the big issue here.

[Skurwol]

Yes that is exactly what it seems like. The OP's English is poor so there is just a slight possibility that he is somehow not expressing himself well.

But overall it looks like the OP has admitted to laying at 9.20 (admitted multiple times) and he obviously backed at 9.20 because we have a screenshot of it.

Betfair has accused him of funds passing. It looks like he did.

What a shame. For only 150 euros he loses his 2000 balance AND his account.

I think he did funds pass - but I think the Betfair penalty is too harsh. It is not proportionate to the total sum of the offence and (presumably) it was a one-off as the OP was betting happily until the offence was logged.

A better penalty would be: OP loses his 150 euros associated with the bad transaction. OP is allowed to withdraw his 2000. OP is barred.

If I were the OP/SBR I would be arguing this line - admit the wrongdoing but argue that the penalty is disproportionate.


I still do not understand how he funds passed on the moneyline market at 9.20 if these were good/competitive odds at the time - any other user could have snapped up his offer at 9.20.

I am aware that my English is not good and certainly makes communication difficult.

I could agree to this. Of course, it's better than nothing. But I can't admit wrongdoing because I've never transferred funds through the exchange. It must have been pure coincidence.

Question: Did you Lay at 9.20 (Yes/No)

No

Question: Did you back at 9.20 (Yes/No)

Yes

Use google translate to translate your original text to English then translate it back to your native language to check. If the re-translation is not perfect then use different words until the 2 x translations work.

With the advent of google translate there is no excuse for your unclear, ambiguous and non-sensical posts. Sort it out if you want analysis and help from this forum.


It happens that the possibility of being falsely accused of "funds passing" at Betfair is a hot topic for a number of readers here - because it seems that habitually we will jump on other users' errors at Betfair when we see them - so there are many here interested in the outcome of this thread and of the exact facts pertaining to this thread and your case.

Take the time to be clear here using tools like Google translate properly if you want support and analysis here.

Almost every post I made was written using Google Translate. I have noticed much earlier that this translator is not perfect and I changed words many times until I think about the correct translation.

I would like my posts to be as understandable as possible, and that is also in my interest. I try to visit this thread as often as I can and spend a lot of time writing each post, sometimes it takes more than half an hour or more.

With his statement "the market appeared available to play the odds back @~1.12" he means to say that there was no other action on that market at that point. The @9.2 he posted showed up as first option to lay Baltimore, and consequently a @1.12 as best available odds to back Washington.

That was the case, for a while the market was "dead" which is why I noticed lay bet @25 Baltimore Orioles on the main list of all markets on MLB in-play. Originally, I thought the Baltimore Orioles had to lose, but after checking the results, I decided to break that bet.

[docholiday]

Does BIA and AsianConnect ask for KFC verification on withdrawals? Thanks

[Skurwol]

Does BIA and AsianConnect ask for KFC verification on withdrawals? Thanks

In the end, I did not withdraw funds, also do not know if the BIA would ask for additional verification of withdrawals.



It would be fair if Betfair only confiscated the funds in which they claims to have funds passing. Or simply voided these bets, then the people who made the mistake could recover their funds. And after two times a bet of this type from the same account, confiscate all funds and close the account. Surely there must be a better solution than the ones they have used so far.

[Joey Zaza]

So who is holding the 2k in funds, Betfair or Orbit? Is there not a legal way the OP can pursue this?

Seizing the whole account is ridiculous. That's just theft, surely?

[laur88]

LS:

You have been informed on the rulings and your violations. In summary, you have been identified as violator of AML policies and collaborating with others.

This case has been dismissed for further review.


Antillephone N.V.
License & Complaints 8048/JAZ


I received this letter and the end)))) this is all a fraudulent organization mutually together.do not play orbit exchanges and Curacao licenses.8 month ago we closed the account and here is the letter

[jjgold]

Orbit a big scam