someone vs Kineko.com

[jeff_45]

The ordeal began in December 2022 when they created an account with Kineko.com.

[maxd says: given the odd nature of this post -- part of a campaign, posted on behalf of someone else (??), etc -- it seems best to ensure that anyone wanting to read it be aware of its dubious nature.]

Over the following six months, they actively engaged in significant betting, focusing mainly on sports and major European football leagues. Their betting limits were gradually increased from $10,000 to $12,000, then to $18,000, and finally to $20,000. Despite initial losses, the trouble started in May 2023 when they tried to withdraw a large portion of their $250,000 balance after a winning streak.

On June 23, 2023, Kineko's developers informed them that their data provider was not processing payments as expected, causing a 4-6 week delay due to ongoing litigation. They were offered the option to open a second account for further betting and withdrawals, but withdrawals from their main account were postponed until the litigation concluded. They insisted that Kineko was responsible for their balance and proposed a payment plan as a solution.

Kineko agreed to process $10,000 worth of withdrawals every week starting July 15, 2023, until the issue was resolved. However, this plan was followed only for two weeks before Kineko missed payments. A subsequent promise to process $20,000 on August 9, 2023, to cover the missed weeks was not fulfilled. After continuous excuses, Kineko management suggested a settlement on September 14, 2023, citing difficulties with their sports data provider and previous payments.

In response, they outlined four points needing address: a comprehensive update on outstanding payments, an explanation for delays, a clear timeline for resolution, and assurance of the security of their balance and pending withdrawals. On October 3, 2023, Kineko proposed a new plan to process $10,000 worth of withdrawals every 15th of the month, which they accepted. The first payment was received on November 22, 2023, but subsequent payments were missed. The last communication from Kineko was on January 18, 2024, apologizing for the delays.

After waiting for a year to recover their money, they have grown impatient with Kineko's failure to adhere to the agreed payment schedule. They urge Kineko to release their funds immediately and warn others about potential scams, particularly concerning Kineko's NFT project. The total amount scammed includes 181,042 USDC, 42,026 USDT, 3.377 ETH, 0.3164 BTC, and 2.59 SOL. They advise avoiding Kineko’s website, token, or NFT project until the dispute is resolved.

 

[maxd]

I've been alerted that whoever the above actually refers to -- the mysterious "they" -- is making the rounds with this issue ... but strangely not taking any formal action like filing a PAB for instance. So yeah, might be worth taking all this with a pinch of salt until further information is provided.

- Max

 

[jasonuk]

It is a weird one for sure! First of all, talking in the third person is always a red flag.

Secondly, it looks like these posts have been going on for a while - while searching I found a post from Stop and Step's forum four days ago (edit: and about ten other threads from new accounts in the past 10 days - so this is clearly a coordinated campaign), which has an unreadable screenshot with metadata that points to a BitCoinTalk thread from May 2024, which references both a September 2023 Casino Guru complaint (who declined to act because it's sport betting) and a May 2024 PAB (which was a no can do).

The BCT thread (which I've forwarded to @maxd) talks in the first person, and also provides a bunch of screenshots and other evidence.

The crux appears to be an email from September 2023. The sportsbook indicates that they've had ongoing problems with their sports data provider, which has resulted in "offering really high odds" for various matches. The data provider refuses to accept responsibility - and thus the sportsbook is currently on the hook for it.

The email also mentions they've already processed 100k+ in net withdrawals to the player, and is looking for a settlement of the rest.

So any such investigation - which I assume BCT would be better placed to investigate - will revolve around the bets struck. Plenty of datasets exist to identify odds both pre-match and in-play, so it would be possible to quickly establish how out of line those odds were compared to the wider market. The BCT poster has talked about publishing their bet history (and denied that the odds were out of line), but doesn't appear to have yet - deferring that to the sportsbook to do on their behalf.

I can think of a couple of situations here:

Scenario 1: The sportsbook is telling the truth, in which case the player is (repeatedly?) exploiting a "palpable error" and the sportsbook should have terms to correct the bet - e.g. using odds from comparable sportsbooks or exchanges at the time of bet placement - or in the worst scenario, void the bet.

Their attempts at a settlement may be intended to offset some or all of the palp that occurred - particularly if it involves more than one player - rather than use T&Cs to force the situation and risk a substantial PR backlash - even if they are in the right.


Scenario 2: The sportsbook is not telling the truth and the odds weren't out of line, and the player bet big and won big. In this case the sportsbook is deliberately slow-paying and/or no-paying and people should be avoiding such operations.

 

[maxd]

Hmm, I find that we had this very case submitted to us some months ago as a PAB but from a different forum user.

@jeff_45 @Bolla1 , please explain why there are two different accounts reporting exactly the same issue with very much the same text. I remind you that multiple accounts here at Casinomeister are not normally permitted: doing so is a violation of the Forum Rules.

- Max

 

[jeff_45]

It is a weird one for sure! First of all, talking in the third person is always a red flag.

Secondly, it looks like these posts have been going on for a while - while searching I found a post from Stop and Step's forum four days ago (edit: and about ten other threads from new accounts in the past 10 days - so this is clearly a coordinated campaign), which has an unreadable screenshot with metadata that points to a BitCoinTalk thread from May 2024, which references both a September 2023 Casino Guru complaint (who declined to act because it's sport betting) and a May 2024 PAB (which was a no can do).

The BCT thread (which I've forwarded to @maxd) talks in the first person, and also provides a bunch of screenshots and other evidence.

The crux appears to be an email from September 2023. The sportsbook indicates that they've had ongoing problems with their sports data provider, which has resulted in "offering really high odds" for various matches. The data provider refuses to accept responsibility - and thus the sportsbook is currently on the hook for it.

The email also mentions they've already processed 100k+ in net withdrawals to the player, and is looking for a settlement of the rest.

So any such investigation - which I assume BCT would be better placed to investigate - will revolve around the bets struck. Plenty of datasets exist to identify odds both pre-match and in-play, so it would be possible to quickly establish how out of line those odds were compared to the wider market. The BCT poster has talked about publishing their bet history (and denied that the odds were out of line), but doesn't appear to have yet - deferring that to the sportsbook to do on their behalf.

I can think of a couple of situations here:

Scenario 1: The sportsbook is telling the truth, in which case the player is (repeatedly?) exploiting a "palpable error" and the sportsbook should have terms to correct the bet - e.g. using odds from comparable sportsbooks or exchanges at the time of bet placement - or in the worst scenario, void the bet.

Their attempts at a settlement may be intended to offset some or all of the palp that occurred - particularly if it involves more than one player - rather than use T&Cs to force the situation and risk a substantial PR backlash - even if they are in the right.


Scenario 2: The sportsbook is not telling the truth and the odds weren't out of line, and the player bet big and won big. In this case the sportsbook is deliberately slow-paying and/or no-paying and people should be avoiding such operations.

I appreciate your thorough analysis, but I want to clarify that this complaint comes from a genuine place and is based on real events. I have firsthand information from the beginning, as the player involved is my client.

The use of the third person in the post was a deliberate choice to maintain a certain level of professionalism and distance while discussing the matter in a public forum. It was not meant to raise red flags but to provide a clear and detailed account of the situation.

Regarding the multiple posts across different forums, this is not a coordinated campaign but a genuine effort to seek justice and resolution. The player has been facing significant issues, and reaching out to various platforms is a way to garner support and find a solution. The complexity and persistence of the problem necessitate this approach.

The email from September 2023 and the details surrounding it are accurate. The sportsbook's problems with their sports data provider have indeed led to discrepancies in odds, and my client has been directly affected. The settlement attempts by the sportsbook are acknowledged, but the player has not received the full amount owed, which is why this issue persists.

Investigating the bets and comparing odds with other sportsbooks can help establish the truth. If the odds were truly out of line, the sportsbook has the right to rectify the situation as per their terms and conditions. However, if the odds were fair, the player deserves to receive their rightful winnings without further delay.

This is not about exploiting errors but about ensuring that my client is treated fairly and receives what they are owed. We hope for a transparent investigation and a swift resolution. Thank you for understanding the genuine nature of this complaint and the efforts made to resolve it.

 

[jasonuk]

Regarding the multiple posts across different forums, this is not a coordinated campaign but a genuine effort to seek justice and resolution. The player has been facing significant issues, and reaching out to various platforms is a way to garner support and find a solution. The complexity and persistence of the problem necessitate this approach.

It would still be a coordinated campaign, even if from a genuine place. At the time of my original feedback, some of those threads had already been removed or closed - because a bunch of new accounts posting the same thing doesn't give a good impression, and might be indistinguishable from spam.

For transparency, it should be noted that more such threads have been posted since Tuesday.

The email from September 2023 and the details surrounding it are accurate. The sportsbook's problems with their sports data provider have indeed led to discrepancies in odds, and my client has been directly affected. The settlement attempts by the sportsbook are acknowledged, but the player has not received the full amount owed, which is why this issue persists.

Investigating the bets and comparing odds with other sportsbooks can help establish the truth. If the odds were truly out of line, the sportsbook has the right to rectify the situation as per their terms and conditions. However, if the odds were fair, the player deserves to receive their rightful winnings without further delay.

This is the part where outside viewers wouldn't be able to draw the same conclusions.

The sportsbook has previously tried to settle so in their eyes they believe - whether through admission of fault or goodwill gesture - that some money is still owed.

However, without the bet history nobody is able to establish who the discrepancy favours (and it may not be the same party in each scenario) - and if palpable errors exist then the player isn't necessarily owed the full amount.

The issue is that the original author is talking in absolutes - and has been somewhat combative in their replies (e.g. from the BCT thread):

"How you run your risk management is not my responsibility. I played with kineko when betting, not a third party. You are the party that owes me my balance. If you have deals behind the scenes, that is your business. You are a profitable casino. I believe you will be even more profitable in the future. Could a payment plan be agreed upon?”

I wouldn't entirely agree with this statement - palpable error clauses are part of their risk management, to protect against technical and human errors. A sportsbook would not be able to function if it was held liable for all first and third party mistakes or malicious behaviour.


This is further complicated by the original author talking about "livebets" (in-play betting) on European Football 1x2. These are prone to even more errors - late market suspensions is a common one, but VAR has introduced a whole raft of new scenarios.

Any adjudicator would need to review the bets in the context of the match under way:

• Should the bets have been accepted in the first place - was there a VAR check underway? did the data provider and/or sportsbook miss a market suspension notification?
• Were the odds accurate for the current state of the game?
• Did a material event occur between the bet being placed and the bet being accepted (the in-play delay), and if so should it have rejected the bet?

Unfortunately, this is a conversation that should have taken place last summer when they were willing to negotiate - recent attempts to mediate (PAB here, an affiliate on BTC) were given the "talk to the hand" treatment, and the recent media campaign is only going to make that situation worse.

I hope there is a positive outcome, but fear the damage may have been done.

 

[maxd]

... Thank you for understanding the genuine nature of this complaint and the efforts made to resolve it.

And you still haven't explained why two accounts are reporting, and claiming, the same case. Do you have two accounts here at Casinomeister? If so, why?

Please note that we consider your response non-optional: contact me privately if you wish but please do respond. If you refuse to reply both accounts are at risk.

- Max

 

[jeff_45]

And you still haven't explained why two accounts are reporting, and claiming, the same case. Do you have two accounts here at Casinomeister? If so, why?

Please note that we consider your response non-optional: contact me privately if you with but please do respond. If you refuse to reply both accounts are at risk.

- Max

hello this is my account don't know about another account created twice

 

[maxd]

Dude, you're both describing the same problem! Same dates, same basic description of the problem, same amounts, even some of the same text. They're the same case. And you expect me to believe there is no connection between the two accounts? Either you have multiple accounts and are lying, or you are representing someone else and don't want to divulge that, or ... ???

If you be straight with me and start telling the truth I'm sure we can figure something out. If you force me to dig into this and draw my own conclusions then it's very likely that both accounts will get banned for Forum Rules violations.

Your choice, but I would recommend trying a little honesty on for size here. If you prefer privacy then PM me, as you already have previously. I'll give you until tomorrow morning to come up with a credible explanation. If you offer none then it'll be time to kick both accounts to the curb.

- Max

 

[maxd]

Well, I've seen no reply and you've definitely been on the site since I posted the above so I can only assume you've opted to say nothing which I warned you would not be satisfactory.

So, what can I say, goodbye and good luck. If you change your mind and want to start explaining things feel free to contact me via max.drayman@casinomeister.com and we'll see what we can work out for you.

- Max