Arbusers

These are terms offered in retail market. I m sure there are other terms offered in agents.

well, as bet-ibc keeps advertising a "partner website" that "offers" bet365-accounts they have previously "bought" from other peope, it's no surprise bet-ibc itself apparently also offers account in other people's names.  i would be very surprised betfair would allow third parties betting under names that are not their own, i'm 100% certain bet365 doesn't. 

this thing with the account under another name smells fishy to me.. I have also an Betfair account with an other Agent and it's of course under my name. Seems like BET-IBC is knowingly giving people accounts in restricted areas where Betfair holds no licence.

Doesn't matter if Retail or Agent Terms and Conditions, this would be clearly a breach of many Laws (Gambling laws, Money Laundring, ...) and could lead to hefty fines and also to problems when applying for licences in other juristictions. I somehow doubt, that Betfair is aware of this. If they are, there is no way around it, they are clearly breaking the law by providing accounts to BET-IBC.

This sounds very shady, no wonder why they wanted the screenshot deleted asap. I personally would stay away from BET-IBC after reading all this.

NXV wrote: this thing with the account under another name smells fishy to me.. I have also an Betfair account with an other Agent and it's of course under my name. Seems like BET-IBC is knowingly giving people accounts in restricted areas where Betfair holds no licence.

Doesn't matter if Retail or Agent Terms and Conditions, this would be clearly a breach of many Laws (Gambling laws, Money Laundring, ...) and could lead to hefty fines and also to problems when applying for licences in other juristictions. I somehow doubt, that Betfair is aware of this. If they are, there is no way around it, they are clearly breaking the law by providing accounts to BET-IBC.

This sounds very shady, no wonder why they wanted the screenshot deleted asap. I personally would stay away from BET-IBC after reading all this.

Many agents do the same, even the most trusted ones. Anyway, account owner is irrelevant to the topic. The main point that we are waiting is the proof from Bet-IBC that bets were indeed voided from Betfair. Haven't seen such proof yet from their side.

Once again, we will not allow freshly registered members to comment in this thread.
Thank you.

apoel81 wrote:

BET-IBC Support wrote: Hello Forum Community!

In this post, we will try to clarify a few things.

A) „BET-IBC has to prove…“
There would be 2 ways to „prove“:
1) we can give you access to our bank account and show everyone who asks for what money we have or have not received, which is completely out of the question
2) we give everyone access to our email and ticket system that contain the conversations we have with bookies, payment providers and clients daily, which is equally not possible

Imo, if Betfair for any reason voided that bet, Bet-IBC holds no responsibility for it. No agent would cover that cost and i believe everyone understands this.

However,can't understand why you claim you are unable to provide the message from betfair regarding the reason of void.

Noone asked for your conversations you have with bookies, noone asked for access to your mail and ticket system etc. As you stated, betfair had informed you about the reason behind the void bets.

64k is big amount of money and proofs are needed imo. You can still sent a fullscreen screenshot with betfair's explanation regarding the voids to the admin here, no need for everyone to see it.

We asked Betfair again some days ago regarding the case and here you can see the reply with names, email and phone blacked out for obvious reasons: Screenshot deleted by arbusers.com for data protection.

If the bets in question were all between one client and another, and the low offer (that no player would ever match)  was placed on Betfair by Tennistrader before being taken by ONE other client in full, then I agree it would look like an attempted funds transfer.  But if bets were matched by multiple other users, or the back bet was submitted first (IE someone sent in a really bad back offer in error and Tennistrader snapped it up) then Betfair are in the wrong.

Until Betfair do a full investigation into that trade, the bets should stand. 

screenshot does convincingly show BetIBC was merely caught in the middle of this in my opinion (still could have defended its own customer better, but that's another story).

We asked Betfair again some days ago regarding the case and here you can see the reply with names, email and phone blacked out for obvious reasons: Screenshot deleted by arbusers.com for data protection.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply.

As long as betfair voided the bets, i don't believe any agent would cover losses out of their own pocket. Had similar issue with another agent few months ago. Placed a bet on hosts (Team A) on betfair via mollybet platform. However Team A was listed as were in betfair site so even i was backing team A with mollybet i ended up backing team B due to mollybet bug. Instead of a winning bet i ended up with a lost one, not even a refund. Agent said it was molybet bug etc, nothing they could do about it.

My personal vote is for Bet-IBC. Don't say that Tennistrader was passing funds but since betfair voided those bets what any agent would do?Yes, they should have defend their client better since amount is 64k, this is another story though.

Bet-Ibc posted an interesting screenshot of communication between Bet-Ibc and Betfair.
Betfair contacted us and requested this screenshot to be deleted presenting valid reasons.
Therefore it is our decision to delete the above mentioned screenshot.
Thank you

You have to have an open eye in this thread as it became a hardball.
All parties are not what they are appearing to be.

only one qwestion that i dont get it.... why bet-ibc dont give to this guy betfair data to speak with betfair

The case is getting complicated. Things are not that clear as some people claim to be. One of the things I learned is not to take one or another side from the very beginning. Right now I m not sure about the accusations and I m not sure about the agent's position.
I would like to see Betfair's communication with arbusers but again this would be ''data protection''.

if you ask me, it isnt that complicated. bet ibc said from beginning that it was the decision by bf to void,
not the decision from agent. the screen proved this. arbusers saw it and perhaps
can say wheater it was authentic or not. the decision from the bf traders to void was
over 1year ago and seems to be permanent ...

I m wondering what happened in this case. The OP is silent and I m thinking that an agreement took place?