NitrogenSports 10k confiscation (Case Closed)

[BMR Disputes Matt]

I believe I have given an honest account Oli. If you have a specific line you would like to quote as slanderous, I am happy to still address that for you.

 

[oligibbons]

To quote you directly.

A nitrogen manager said that they preferred to deal directly with the player on this occasion. Oli replied refusing to re-try that saying "I've done that. I did that in April. I thought I had made that clear in my previous emails and my posts with their replies on the forum.".

The response you quote was in reference to your request to try and mediate with Nitrogen Which I responded on the 24th June 2022. On advisement from you I tried for the 3rd time to engage with them and was again told by Nitrogen that their decision stood. You were aware of this information.

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

You know there is no CR body providing bookmaking licenses. Was this tip a joke?

The fact you keep obfuscating with references to the criminal code and bookmaking licenses only re-enforces my opinion that this act is just for Oli's benefit to convince him of your ignorance.

There are 100s of bookmakers registered in Costa Rica with business licenses. Unless they also register to pay tax on local users they are excluded from servicing locals under those licenses. That is why most CR books cannot accept locals and it should not surprise you to hear this is a thing.

But it is barely relevant anyway, as that is what sparked their investigation. They still have the point that you and Oli did not open this account originally, unless you can come up with a 4th story about it's opening that is true maybe. And they also have the proof of your email telling them it is a joint account.

I don't think you have any plausible, or legal leg to stand on. Even in a USA court.

But please go ahead and do it. I am told it is quite cheap to lodge a civil claim and represent yourselves in Costa Rica. No reason for you not to try that at this point as mediation has failed.

 

[oligibbons]

To quote you

Nitro claim could offer the opportunity for them to have inside/early information to assist in their betting so they do want them as customers for that reason as well.

I have made no secret that I have worked in e-Gaming previously, and bet for many years. I have asked BMR and Nitrogen to give examples of times that I have used "inside" information to exploit Nitrogen. No evidence has been posted that any of my wagers were exploitative, cheating, arbing or steam. I have been on the wrong side of a 20 cent line, that is the reality, (which is hard to beat as it is) and then when I won my bets haven't been honored.

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

The response you quote was in reference to your request to try and mediate with Nitrogen Which I responded on the 24th June 2022. On advisement from you I tried for the 3rd time to engage with them and was again told by Nitrogen that their decision stood. You were aware of this information.

View attachment 6156


View attachment 6158

I was not aware that you ended up trying again Oli, or I had forgotten about this.

I apologize for that error in my account. No slander was intended.

 

[oligibbons]

The fact you keep obfuscating with references to the criminal code and bookmaking licenses only re-enforces my opinion that this act is just for Oli's benefit to convince him of your ignorance.

There are 100s of bookmakers registered in Costa Rica with business licenses. Unless they also register to pay tax on local users they are excluded from servicing locals under those licenses. That is why most CR books cannot accept locals and it should not surprise you to hear this is a thing.

But it is barely relevant anyway, as that is what sparked their investigation. They still have the point that you and Oli did not open this account originally, unless you can come up with a 4th story about it's opening that is true maybe. And they also have the proof of your email telling them it is a joint account.

I don't think you have any plausible, or legal leg to stand on. Even in a USA court.

But please go ahead and do it. I am told it is quite cheap to lodge a civil claim and represent yourselves in Costa Rica. No reason for you not to try that at this point as mediation has failed.

What evidence do you have that the account was not registered by myself. The registration is to an email that I have held (and contains my name) since 2006.

 

[elihu.feustel]

The fact you keep obfuscating with references to the criminal code and bookmaking licenses only re-enforces my opinion that this act is just for Oli's benefit to convince him of your ignorance.

Someone I respect has requested that I (and Oli) stop posting here for a several days. He and I are honoring that request.

 

[oligibbons]

To quote @BMR Disputes Matt :

Many days later Oli came back with a new date in 2017 and not much else to support an argument.

Many days, can I guess be quantified as three.

I came back with an exact date and exact amount I deposited.

 

[oligibbons]

Someone I respect has requested that I (and Oli) stop posting here for a several days. He and I are honoring that request.

In the spirit of Cessez-le-feu and second chances, I will not be posting for several days.

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

What evidence do you have that the account was not registered by myself. The registration is to an email that I have held (and contains my name) since 2006.

I don't. But after we told them that you opened the account with a Costa Rican IP in 2020 as our main point that they should have been aware of your location, and that you had bet from there in good faith, and that ends up proving untrue, it becomes very hard to negotiate on the basis any of our claims are true.

We needed a strong and accurate argument in response. We had none.

The mediation process had failed.

You know their points. If you are convinced that they are legally incorrect then the local civil court is the best avenue.

 

[hazliam]

What I am impress with is Nitrogen books lines are so weak, that someone have to go out of their way to buy an account to give them action. Here I am waiting for books to beg to take my action!

 

[hazliam]

BTW how much money are we talking about here? Be crazy if it is $55 dollars =P

 

[rolandcorts]

Someone I respect has requested that I (and Oli) stop posting here for a several days. He and I are honoring that request.

Feel free to extend it beyond a few days.

BTW how much money are we talking about here? Be crazy if it is $55 dollars =P

Only $10k

 

[elihu.feustel]

I don't. But after we told them that you opened the account with a Costa Rican IP in 2020 as our main point that they should have been aware of your location, and that you had bet from there in good faith, and that ends up proving untrue, it becomes very hard to negotiate on the basis any of our claims are true.

Why was this the main point? The first issue should be: did the player violate Nitro's T&C.

Nitro's stated reason for seizing the balance was their rule saying the players agree that it's legal for them to bet online where they reside. This is why the criminal law matters -- it's legal to bet online in CR. Oli's bets from CR didn't violate a CR law, or Nitro's own rule for that matter.

If the mediation process failed, and Nitro still hasn't shown the player's conduct violated their rules, and stands by its confiscation of $10,000, are you still recommending them to other players?

 

[elihu.feustel]

Wow, 7 months after the seizure, Nitro changes its story. Even two months ago, they were claiming Oli violated their rule about CR being an illegal jurisdiction for players to bet online (it’s not). Now Nitro rests its hat on “They believe Elihu/Oli have purchased a historically aged account”. At a minimum, Oli had the registered email and proof of the initial deposit. Nitro's allegation is false and is likely the reason Nitro offered no proof on this point.

Nitrogen/BMR earlier stated “no bookmaker holding a Costa Rica license is allowed to service people in CR.”. There is a link to the Costa Rican criminal code. No such law exists. There is a dispute of law, and we offered proof that this claimed law does not exist. Can you show us this law you rely on? BMR suggested that license/tax law affects Nitro, but that is not applicable how their rules are written. The player must simply be able to legally bet where he is betting.

Nitrogen claims the account was not opened in 2020, and importantly, “had used a VPN for all connections logged in the months leading up to account closure.” So, there is a factual dispute. Did Nitrogen offer proof that all logins were via vpn? (No). Was Oli asked for evidence on this (e.g., phone browser logs?) No. Was I asked for any of my IP info? (No). But this whole issue does not matter, because there is it's not illegal to bet online in CR -- previous paragraph.

Nitro claimed we had inside/early information to assist in betting. What information was that, and what matches? (There was no inside information; Oli and I bet most markets using Answer Key to price derivatives, which we could show is BMR asked about it. We weren’t.) If we had such inside information, one would expect bets on full game spreads and totals, which are most liquid. In general, Oli and I don’t even price those.

BMR/Nitrogen suggests I “controlled” the account. What proof do they offer? I have never logged into it, placed a bet, seen its balance, funded it or taken a withdrawal. I’ve never even seen the login credentials.

“Nothing Oli told us turned out to be true.” Everything he has stated has been truthful. I have a simple principal in disputes: stick to the truth, even if it’s bad. If something bad is out there, it will come out. Despite all the claims of dishonesty here, I don’t see any facts or evidence, which you would expect with these damning allegations.

BMR concluded that “false information was given to BMR”. By Nitro about the law, VPNs and Insider information, certainly. Oli? What was false? How did you establish it was false?

In conclusion “BMR considers that Nitrogen have explained themselves adequately in this case.” Wow. Did you conclude that Oli violated their rule citing a non-existent law in Costa Rica? Or that I (Elihu) controlled the account without ever asking me about this new claim or looking at Oli’s proofs?

 

[petrix]

I mean even if they turn it around, they can’t be trusted for a long time. It’s hard enough to beat the lines.

Its posible to beat their lines on some markets.

 

[sportsbettor5]

“Nothing Oli told us turned out to be true.” Everything he has stated has been truthful. I have a simple principal in disputes: stick to the truth, even if it’s bad.

Did you or Oli claim that you opened that account in 2020 with a naked IP? If yes, was this true?

I understand that this really shouldn't be the main focus, but you did claim here that "everything [Oli] has stated has been truthful", and it seems Matt and Nitrogen both think that claim is false.

Otherwise, I think you've made a strong argument. Based on everything posted in this thread so far it seems like Nitrogen is in the wrong.

 

[elihu.feustel]

Did you or Oli claim that you opened that account in 2020 with a naked IP? If yes, was this true?

I understand that this really shouldn't be the main focus, but you did claim here that "everything [Oli] has stated has been truthful", and it seems Matt and Nitrogen both think that claim is false.

Otherwise, I think you've made a strong argument. Based on everything posted in this thread so far it seems like Nitrogen is in the wrong.

You are correct -- it was inaccurate and corrected. Was it deliberately untruthful, or an oversight?

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

You are correct -- it was inaccurate and corrected. Was it deliberately untruthful, or an oversight?

I'm not certain. Oli does talk like a genuine person and was believable to me.

But when the arguments we tried to make proved to be so far from reality it's understandable that the book would scoff at claims they are wrong.


And FYI, it was the key argument because if he had opened the account in Cost Rica, and had used a naked IP, and had been betting without a VPN as we claimed.... then we had a Very Strong case to say Nitro was acting unreasonably to penalize more than simply shutting the account and paying him.

But having presented that argument and proven wrong, we don't just get to go back with a new version of our story and except the book to just ignore the first claim and believe the new one. We needed to provide a very good reason for the first error, and accurate data the second time. But we got that wrong too.

Can't you see the position we ended up in?

 

[elihu.feustel]

What proof did they offer? It's trivial to get a wager log with IPs and device IDs. Any wager he made on a phone would have a CR IP. So call that a fact in dispute. Player claims he had naked bets with CR IP, Nitro says he didn't.

But that factual dispute is irrelevant. Nitro's quoted reason for seizing his balance is that "He bet online from a jurisdiction where it's illegal for him to bet online". It's legal to bet in CR. Nitro told you it is illegal, but this was proven false. Why are they clinging to this false logic?

If I said my shirt is green, and someone else said it's blue, that's not a defense for stealing money. It might be a factual dispute, but it doesn't matter. Not unless I promised not to wear a blue shirt. If Nitro didn't want people betting online in CR, they could include that in their rules, but they did not. Nitro's rules as written allow a person in CR to bet online.