Huge issue with Bookmaker.eu, around $9k involved.

[adrianvxo]

First of all, I want to mention that I've been with Bookmaker.eu for more than a decade and I've never really had major issues. Payments are extremely fast and customer service do assist you with various issues. But as far as my latest issue, there is a lot of money involved, and I am stuck in a stalemate with customer service. Their management had to look at my case and decided not to rule in my favor.

I had a big parlay that involves 7 events. One of them was a NBA game and the rest were eSports events (CS:GO in particular.) eSports betting is kind of a niche area, so I will try to add as much detail as possible. Before 5 of my events from the parlay were even played, something happened in one of the events that I immediately contacted Bookmaker about. Needless to say, this event would turn out to be the only loss on my ticket. The total winnings was $14,000, and about $9,500 with a push on this particular event.

The event was a Counter Strike:Global Offensive match between Mad Lions and 777. Mad Lions were favorites at 1.41. These events are played on a best out of 3 maps format. There are 5 players in each team. During the first map, at the score of 1-1 (a team needs at least 16 rounds to win), one of the players for Mad Lions disconnected because of internet issues (this tournament takes place online). A long technical timeout followed (more than 20 minutes) and the player could not return and abandoned. After that, the team's coach (not even a CS:GO player or part of the official roster) joined the team. Needless to say, they lost the map and were 0-1 down.

According to esports rules, having a replacement cannot be the sole reason for a bet to be considered a push, even if that player is not even an official player. One of us could play in the game and it would not be considered ineligible. However, there is this rule in the official Bookmaker eSports rulebook:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

In my case, a player forfeited on at least one map. The player got disconnected early and could not return to the map. This is supported by by video evidence (there is a stream of the match where he leaves the game, the team waits for him for 20 minutes, and he never returns to the server)

I contacted support with the proof and the rule from their own rulebook and I spent a whole day talking to customer service during which they opened multiple tickets and investigated. In the end, the decision went to management and they told me that a management decision is final.

There was a lot of rule twisting going on. One of the rules they brought up was that:

Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

Then I repeatedly explained that this is not the reason why I am asking for a push. I am asking for a push because of a different rule, which states:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

Under this rule, I am 100% in the right, but Bookmaker interpreted it differently.

I played here for 10+ years, placed tens of thousands of bets, and would not be persistent if I didn't think I was right. But at the moment, it's my word against them, so I need help deciding what is the next step to do. I don't want to lose $9,000 on a technicality.

Thank you

[Mugsy777]

another scammer , it never stops

[adrianvxo]

another scammer , it never stops

what do you mean?

[kakad]

Gonna have to agree with Bookmaker on this one. It sucks, but the team did not forfeit the whole map or receive a walkover loss. They played the map, albeit with a less skilled replacement player unfortunately for you, but they did play. I think the confusing part is the inclusion of "player or team... forfeits on at least one map", if 'player' was not included then this would be a lot more clear. I think player is merely included for any single player esports like say Fortnight? and not referring to a single player in team based games like LOL/CSGO...etc.

[adrianvxo]

Gonna have to agree with Bookmaker on this one. It sucks, but the team did not forfeit the whole map or receive a walkover loss. They played the map, albeit with a less skilled replacement player unfortunately for you, but they did play. I think the confusing part is the inclusion of "player or team... forfeits on at least one map", if 'player' was not included then this would be a lot more clear. I think player is merely included for any single player esports like say Fortnight? and not referring to a single player in team based games like LOL/CSGO...etc.

You are very right that the wording is confusing. However, the fact that "at least one map" is included in there can only make me think of team events, as I don't know if players would play on a map. I think maps clearly refer to team events. And a player forfeited a map, which in hindsight, is a crucial aspect of a team based like CSGO. Playing with a coach instead of an official roster team member is almost a guaranteed loss.

[DontTailMe]

another scammer , it never stops

Huh? It sounds like a legitimate case. His interpretation of the rules may end up being wrong (I'm not an eSports expert so I'm not going to pretend to know). But it doesn't seem like OP is trying to scam anyone here.

[Optional]

It sounds like you have gotten a fair hearing and Bookmaker have taken your problem seriously.


I read what you said twice, and honestly cannot really understand why you think the grading is wrong based on the info you have provided.

If the match continued with a replacement and ended with an official result, I am not seeing any rule you have quoted to suggest a void is correct.

[adrianvxo]

It sounds like you have gotten a fair hearing and Bookmaker have taken your problem seriously.


I read what you said twice, and honestly cannot really understand why you think the grading is wrong based on the info you have provided.

If the match continued with a replacement and ended with an official result, I am not seeing any rule you have quoted to suggest a void is correct.

The rule is literally in their rulebook:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

One player forfeited on at least one map.
=> All wagers on the map and on the series will be canceled

If this rule is being taken into consideration, I am in the right.

[Optional]

The rule is literally in their rulebook:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

One player forfeited on at least one map.
=> All wagers on the map and on the series will be canceled

If this rule is being taken into consideration, I am in the right.

Is it a forfeit if a team changes a player?

Not really a CS expert, but if the match completed all maps I am not seeing a good argument for the forfeit rule.

Sorry to not see it your way, I'd be wanting every possible review for that much money too :\

[kakad]

I'm with Optional. The team did not forfeit. Like I said, 'Player' imo does not make sense regarding CSGO and should be ignored in this particular rule. A 'Player' cannot receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot win by admin decision in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot forfeit in CSGO. However, a 'Team' can receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Team' can win by admin decision in CSGO and a 'Team' can forfeit in CSGO.

[adrianvxo]

So it's very ambiguous to say the least, but if the rule is taken word for word, I am absolutely correct.

The team didn't change a player in the same way that it works in let's say soccer. It wasn't a sub in/sub out type of thing.

The player got disconnected because of network issue. The player has x amount of time to return before he is considered forfeit (usually 10-15 minutes). On the stream, 20 minutes have passed and the player did not return, so technically that is a forfeit/abandonment by rules.

So following the sportsbook rule, a player forfeited on at least one map.

Now as far as the replacement player, there is nothing I can contest, because the rules state that I can't ask for a cancellation for that reason, which I am not. The replacement player was not even a real player, but it was a member of the staff - the team's coach. That's the equivalent of having Ancelotti go play a Real Madrid game when one of the key players is out. But there's nothing I can do about that.

However, the rule #5 covers all my grounds, but so far it has been my word against theirs.

So it all goes down to the interpretation of this rule:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

[adrianvxo]

I'm with Optional. The team did not forfeit. Like I said, 'Player' imo does not make sense regarding CSGO and should be ignored in this particular rule. A 'Player' cannot receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot win by admin decision in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot forfeit in CSGO. However, a 'Team' can receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Team' can win by admin decision in CSGO and a 'Team' can forfeit in CSGO.

I understand that the team did not forfeit, but the rules state "a player or team" and it's in reference to maps - which is usually a term for team-based events. Let's say this was a legal case and it was brought up in court - I would be in the right because of the terminology used in the rule. But beyond that, this is actually a great rule for CS:GO, because 99% of the times where a team member forfeits result in a loss for those maps. It's a 5v5 game and having a coach or a random player fill that spot is really slimming down the odds of winning.

[kakad]

If Bookmaker has no problem with your bet having Action with replacement players for the WHOLE match, then why would they institute a rule saying a player 'forfeiting' at any time is grounds for No Action? Makes no sense. The match was 5 on 5, you got a bad break with the sub, but just glossing over Pinnacle's rules.. they have

"If at least five rounds of a Map are played with fewer than 10 competitors, all bets on the Map will be void"

it could've been worse. You could've had 4 rounds of 5v4 and still had the bet considered official.

[adrianvxo]

I am just going by their rulebook. The rules are there for a reason. If the official Bookmaker eSports rule applies (and it does apply, word for word), then why shouldn't it be enforced? No matter how much the rules are twisted or interpreted, it literally says that "if a /player forfeits on at least one map", the bet should be "cancelled".

There is a difference between what I want rules to mean, what Bookmaker wants the rules to mean, or what they actually say in the official rulebook. If the rulebook is followed, I am the one in the right. Isn't that how it goes in any court of law, legal case, etc?

[bruloc]

I'm with Optional. The team did not forfeit. Like I said, 'Player' imo does not make sense regarding CSGO and should be ignored in this particular rule. A 'Player' cannot receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot win by admin decision in CSGO. A 'Player' cannot forfeit in CSGO. However, a 'Team' can receive a walkover in CSGO. A 'Team' can win by admin decision in CSGO and a 'Team' can forfeit in CSGO.

Perfect.

Also, rule number 6: Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

[adrianvxo]

Perfect.

Also, rule number 6: Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

Thank you for pointing rule number 6, because that is exactly what Bookmaker state as their reason for not changing the grade.

The rule states:

Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

This is not the same as:

Wagers will not be canceled IF a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

I am not requesting the bet to be canceled because of rule #6.

I am requesting the bet to be canceled because of rule #5:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

Rule #6 becomes irrelevant because even if the team had a replacement, this does not change the criteria for rule #5 since a player did FORFEIT on AT LEAST one map.

[Mugsy777]

obvious, wager should be cancelled

[adrianvxo]

obvious, wager should be cancelled

It's just a very ambiguous, technical issue protected by a very niche rule. But there are $10,000 in play. According to the rulebook, I truly believe I am correct, because the rule I mentioned describes word for word what happened. And rules are important.

Yes, it was unfair that a coach had to play instead of a team member, but that is not why I have a good case. I feel like I have a good case based on the actual Bookmaker eSports rules.

[bruloc]

Thank you for pointing rule number 6, because that is exactly what Bookmaker state as their reason for not changing the grade.

The rule states:

Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

This is not the same as:

Wagers will not be canceled IF a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

I am not requesting the bet to be canceled because of rule #6.

I am requesting the bet to be canceled because of rule #5:

If a player or team receives a walkover, win by admin decision, or forfeits on at least one map, all wagers on the map and on the series (moneyline, spread, and total) will be canceled and wagers refunded.

Rule #6 becomes irrelevant because even if the team had a replacement, this does not change the criteria for rule #5 since a player did FORFEIT on AT LEAST one map.

As already told to you, 'a player' is for single player esports (like Starcraft), otherwise would not be necessary to put 'a team' in the rule.

This rule is clearly refering to not completed matches.

[adrianvxo]

As already told to you, 'a player' is for single player esports (like Starcraft), otherwise would not be necessary to put 'a team' in the rule.

This rule is clearly refering to not completed matches.

Ok, I get your point, but where does it say that?

In CS:GO, having a player forfeit pretty much means the map is lost for that team.

What do you think the odds were when an old coach filled the roster - an individual that hasn't even played in at least 4 years and is not on the official roster.

This rule would protect the customer in such scenarios. A player forfeited on at least one map and that's exactly what I'm contesting. If we're going by the rulebook, you can't tell me that I'm not right.

[vampire assassin]

With your interpretation, anytime there is a substitute player, the original player forfeited. This would contradict the rule allowing for action when there is a replacement player. I don't see a mistake in grading here (but it sucks that your parlay lost... talk about bad beats)

[UBNVS]

We need to get bookmaker to do withdrawals on weekends also.

[jjgold]

scammers everywhere

[kknjizekk]

I believe you're in the right here, IF the player was indeed considered as abandoned by the official result.
I think you will have to find out what the official result says about it, if they indeed consider the player as abandoned, then you will have a strong argument on this.

Some comment above says a player cannot receives a walkerover or win by admin decision, this is not correct.
It's a general eSports rule, not a rule for CSGO particularly.
There are games/matches which are 1V1, like Heartstone, Starcraft etc.
So a player can indeed receives a walkerover or win by admin decision.

If the official result confirms the player was considered as abandoned, and bookmaker still refuse to refund you the bet, I'd suggest you contact their license body to make a complaint.

[omgwtflol22]

You're focused on the word "Player" in that rule, and I understand why because of what happened in that game. But that word is not a part of that rule for the reason you think it is. The word "player" is a part of that rule for 1v1 esports events, ex. Starcraft, not team events. Since this is CSGO and 5v5, the word team is the one that would impact this rule in this case. I agree it should be worded better to clarify any confusion in the future, but their ruling is consistent of how they grade esports bets imo.

[BigJay]

scammers everywhere

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mzfe6P6e5No

[adrianvxo]

I believe you're in the right here, IF the player was indeed considered as abandoned by the official result.
I think you will have to find out what the official result says about it, if they indeed consider the player as abandoned, then you will have a strong argument on this.

Some comment above says a player cannot receives a walkerover or win by admin decision, this is not correct.
It's a general eSports rule, not a rule for CSGO particularly.
There are games/matches which are 1V1, like Heartstone, Starcraft etc.
So a player can indeed receives a walkerover or win by admin decision.

If the official result confirms the player was considered as abandoned, and bookmaker still refuse to refund you the bet, I'd suggest you contact their license body to make a complaint.

I do plan on contacting the license body to make a complaint. can someone tell me what the steps for doing this would be?

I have contacted Bookmaker support countless of times and they are basically saying that my bet cannot be cancelled because of rule #6.

Rule #6 states that
Wagers will not be canceled because a team is playing with a stand-in or replacement player.

They insist that this is the rule that applies to my dispute, but if you look at the wording, it says that the bet cannot be cancelled BECAUSE a team is playing with a replacement, and that is not the reason I initiated the dispute.

They are twisting the words to make it sound like the bet cannot be cancelled IF a team has a replacement player.

I've been a customer with them for 10 years and they are basically resorting to twisting their own words from the rulebook. What can I do next ?

[Optional]

Is there an official site that shows results for this match?

If so, would you please post it?

[bruloc]

Is there an official site that shows results for this match?

If so, would you please post it?

Here: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457...inter-series-2

And here is an example of a forfeit: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354502...ies-2022-cup-2
** Third Impact forfeit the 2nd map (16-15 score in favor of Party Astronauts) due to connectivity issues affecting RZU.

[adrianvxo]

Here: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457...inter-series-2

And here is an example of a forfeit: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354502...ies-2022-cup-2
** Third Impact forfeit the 2nd map (16-15 score in favor of Party Astronauts) due to connectivity issues affecting RZU.

So basically, in the example above, the team just forfeited the map rather than finding a stand-in.

In my case, the team chose to put the coach in, who is not even an official CS:GO player. It sounds like they could have slotted one of us and still be able to get away with it. That is mad suspicious.

But regardless, the Bookmaker rules state that if "a player forfeits on at least one map", that bet will also be canceled. The rules are ambiguous, but they did lose a player for the first map, regardless of him being replaced, which corresponds to one of their rules.

The reason why the player forfeited is that the time limit allowed for technical timeouts exceeded and they simply had no choice but to have him out of the map, which is technically a forfeit.

[adrianvxo]

Is there an official site that shows results for this match?

If so, would you please post it?

https://www.hltv.org/player/162/kuben#tab-matchesBox

Also, this is the "player" that replaced the official player for that team. He is a coach who hasn't officially played since 2018 if you look at the match history.

Surely, the eSports betting area should offer more protection for things like these. In other sports, you can't just pick anyone to be on your team - they need to be eligible and be on your roster. Imagine Xavi just subbing into a Barcelona game whenever they need an extra midfielder.

[Optional]

Here: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457...inter-series-2

And here is an example of a forfeit: https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354502...ies-2022-cup-2
** Third Impact forfeit the 2nd map (16-15 score in favor of Party Astronauts) due to connectivity issues affecting RZU.

Thank you Bruloc.



@OP, this makes it very clear that there was no forfeit in your match.

A "forfeit" by definition requires a "loss" of some sort to be involved.

The change of player did not result in a loss or penalty or forfeiture of the map or match.


Your contention that Bookmaker is twisting words in their rules does not appear to be correct to me.

And honestly, you seem to be insistent on twisting the word Forfeit to cover a simple player replacement situation.

So basically, in the example above, the team just forfeited the map rather than finding a stand-in.

In my case, the team chose to put the coach in, who is not even an official CS:GO player. It sounds like they could have slotted one of us and still be able to get away with it.

It sounds like you do understand the difference between forfeit and not, but simply do not want to accept it.

Do the rules allow for replacement players if one is disconnected? Yes they do.

Do the rules specify that the replacement player must be the same standard as the one being replaced? No they do not.


So yes, they could call on anyone including you or me as a replacement and it is allowed under the rules. And it's not called a forfeit by any reading of any dictionary I can see. And I looked.



If you don't like the rules, that's fine, but your bet is graded correctly by the rules there.

No twisting of words is required to justify Bookmaker's grading of this bet.

And in my opinion they have also graded correctly by what I would call standards of fairness.


Would you prefer a situation where rules did not allow any player replacements? So every time there is one the match is no-action?

I don't think so if you really think about it. I'd think having a sure winner voided due to a meaningless late replacement would feel 10x more unfair to you that this.

[DontTailMe]

Thank you Bruloc.



@OP, this makes it very clear that there was no forfeit in your match.

A "forfeit" by definition requires a "loss" of some sort to be involved.

The change of player did not result in a loss or penalty or forfeiture of the map or match.


Your contention that Bookmaker is twisting words in their rules does not appear to be correct to me.

And honestly, you seem to be insistent on twisting the word Forfeit to cover a simple player replacement situation.






It sounds like you do understand the difference between forfeit and not, but simply do not want to accept it.

Do the rules allow for replacement players if one is disconnected? Yes they do.

Do the rules specify that the replacement player must be the same standard as the one being replaced? No they do not.


So yes, they could call on anyone including you or me as a replacement and it is allowed under the rules. And it's not called a forfeit by any reading of any dictionary I can see. And I looked.



If you don't like the rules, that's fine, but your bet is graded correctly by the rules there.

No twisting of words is required to justify Bookmaker's grading of this bet.

And in my opinion they have also graded correctly by what I would call standards of fairness.


Would you prefer a situation where rules did not allow any player replacements? So every time there is one the match is no-action?

I don't think so if you really think about it. I'd think having a sure winner voided due to a meaningless late replacement would feel 10x more unfair to you that this.

The rule OP quotes says that only a map needs to be forfeited, not the entire series. In this case, a map was forfeited, was it not? OP's wager may very well be a loser for other reasons stated in this thread, but I'm not sure misapplication of the word "forfeit" is the guiding principle here, since the rule itself implies that a single map can be forfeited. And I'm not aware of anyone in this thread arguing it wasn't a forfeit. I think this is more like a situation where an MLB team forfeits 1 of 7 World Series games. They still forfeited a game even though they didn't forfeit the entire series.

[Optional]

The rule OP quotes says that only a map needs to be forfeited, not the entire series. In this case, a map was forfeited, was it not? OP's wager may very well be a loser for other reasons stated in this thread, but I'm not sure misapplication of the word "forfeit" is the guiding principle here, since the rule itself implies that a single map can be forfeited. And I'm not aware of anyone in this thread arguing it wasn't a forfeit. I think this is more like a situation where an MLB team forfeits 1 of 7 World Series games. They still forfeited a game even though they didn't forfeit the entire series.

I think you are misunderstanding.

There was no map forfeited. Check the official result for yourself;

https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457/mad-lions-vs-777-pinnacle-winter-series-2

And as far as I understand the conversation, even the OP is not claiming that any map was forfeited or not played out in full.


He is saying that a player timing out so he could no longer play constitutes what the rules call a Player Forfeiting.

[DontTailMe]

I think you are misunderstanding.

There was no map forfeited. Check the official result for yourself;

https://www.hltv.org/matches/2354457/mad-lions-vs-777-pinnacle-winter-series-2

And as far as I understand the conversation, even the OP is not claiming that any map was forfeited or not played out in full.


He is saying that a player timing out so he could no longer play constitutes what the rules call a Player Forfeiting.

Okay, I understand your argument now. I'll take your word for it, as I just looked at that link and realize I have no idea what it says. LOL