NitrogenSports 10k confiscation (Case Closed)

[sportsbettor5]

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?

Matt, is it true that Nitrogen's claim is that Nitrogen is forced to confiscate the balance because Oli bet from a jurisdiction (CR) in which it is illegal to bet? If yes, is this claim accurate?

Elihu seems to have done the research and determined there is no such law. Perhaps Nitrogen doesn't want to take bets from CR IP addresses because of its own tax obligations, but that is different from saying that placing such bets is "illegal", and unless there is a term in Nitrogen's TOC which says that placing a bet from CR is grounds for confiscation of player's balance, this seems like a nonsense justification.

 

[rolandcorts]

Elihu has muddied the water so much on this with his long meandering posts, not to mention those by his sidekick Ollie, that it's impossible to make heads or tails of this anymore.

 

[hazliam]

In my book, even if the op is in the wrong, it doesn't make Nitrogen right. You are essentially freerolling on an account till you incurred a big debt. Deposits, no problem we accept them left and right till you want to withdrawal? Not right.

As for regional restriction. How many of us are playing in US at a offshore book that doesn't have a legal presence to do business there? I mean Bookmaker, BOL, Bovada, Heritage can really say, our bad, we not allow to pay you guys in the US. US restriction and all?

At this point, at least to me, Nitro is definitely a no go in my book. But then I have low BS tolerance too.

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

Matt, is it true that Nitrogen's claim is that Nitrogen is forced to confiscate the balance because Oli bet from a jurisdiction (CR) in which it is illegal to bet? If yes, is this claim accurate?

That was just the first thing that came up. If it had only been that and if Oli's original claim about the account history was accurate, I believe they either would have paid him out originally, or we could have negotiated that for him.

After they looked into the account history they believed it was someone who had purchased or borrowed an old account, among other things that seemed unusual.

But the real nail in the coffin to us being able to negotiate a solution was the email saying someone else also had an interest in the account.


Elihu's argument is purely legal based. We don't offer an adversarial legal service in the way he wants to argue. Plus I think there is enough other term breaches available for Nitrogen to use in answer to his claim that it does not specifically say Costa Rica is banned in their terms. So I did not see it as an area worth pursuing myself. We needed to show Oli was bona-fide as that is all that could have worked via mediation.

 

[hazliam]

That was just the first thing that came up. If it had only been that and if Oli's original claim about the account history was accurate, I believe they either would have paid him out originally, or we could have negotiated that for him.

After they looked into the account history they believed it was someone who had purchased or borrowed an old account, among other things that seemed unusual.

But the real nail in the coffin to us being able to negotiate a solution was the email saying someone else also had an interest in the account.


Elihu's argument is purely legal based. We don't offer an adversarial legal service in the way he wants to argue. Plus I think there is enough other term breaches available for Nitrogen to use in answer to his claim that it does not specifically say Costa Rica is banned in their terms. So I did not see it as an area worth pursuing myself. We needed to show Oli was bona-fide as that is all that could have worked via mediation.

At the end this should be an acceptable answer from BMR to Oli and Eilhu. It is always, we will do our best but we don't own the sportsbook. At the end of the day, if they say "no" that is the final answer.

Side note: My wife and kids also have in interest in my sportsbook. I hit a 5 team parlay we get steak for dinner! =)

 

[elihu.feustel]

Plus I think there is enough other term breaches available for Nitrogen to use in answer to his claim that it does not specifically say Costa Rica is banned in their terms. So I did not see it as an area worth pursuing myself. We needed to show Oli was bona-fide as that is all that could have worked via mediation.

What other terms do they claim were broken?

 

[sportsbettor5]

That was just the first thing that came up. If it had only been that and if Oli's original claim about the account history was accurate, I believe they either would have paid him out originally, or we could have negotiated that for him.

After they looked into the account history they believed it was someone who had purchased or borrowed an old account, among other things that seemed unusual.

But the real nail in the coffin to us being able to negotiate a solution was the email saying someone else also had an interest in the account.


Elihu's argument is purely legal based. We don't offer an adversarial legal service in the way he wants to argue. Plus I think there is enough other term breaches available for Nitrogen to use in answer to his claim that it does not specifically say Costa Rica is banned in their terms. So I did not see it as an area worth pursuing myself. We needed to show Oli was bona-fide as that is all that could have worked via mediation.

I'm going to second Elihu's question here. The "illegal jurisdiction" point seems bogus, so what other reasons, if any, did Nitrogen give for confiscating the balance?

 

[oligibbons]

As per my prior post. I have demonstrated that the account was registered from an email address that contains my name in 2017 and provided the exact amount and date of the first deposit to the account. I don't see how I've not complied with showing that the account was not in fact mine. Unless @BMR Disputes Matt and Nitrogen are convinced that I'm able to traverse the lines of space and time.

 

[oligibbons]

Fundamentally, the mediator sided with the party with which they share financial interests. Is anyone surprised by that? I've been accused of many things, and had my character called into question on obscure technicalities (Few have been true). These have included jurisdiction, internet protocol addresses, (phantom) insider information, getting on airplanes, being British, all which basically detract from the simple fundamental of this case: I placed sports bets that won and they were not honored.

 

[oligibbons]

Did I pursue this claim with the realistic expectation that BMR would actually help me with this. Sure! Did it turn out to be true? No.

I did (still do) have hopes for getting my money. I knew the likelihood of success was small.

My main motivation was and still is, to highlight Nitrogen for what they really are. A toy town book that freerolls winners.

 

[rolandcorts]

Nitro should just pay, but this thread is also a great lesson in exactly how NOT to handle a dispute with a bookmaker.

Nitro's lines can be manipulated. They ban people for doing this, yet also like to remain a BTC anonymous book. So, they don't like to do KYC but at the same time don't like having banned people coming back in the back door via someone else's account. If you use a VPN, they will be all over you even if they have no idea who you might actually be. They probably strongly suspected Oli's account was run by someone else and the fact that Elihu's very first post concedes Oli's was a "partner account" probably proved their suspicion. Nitro then keeps the $$ but provides some nonsensical reasons for it (i.e. banned jurisdiction). Elihu proceeds to go all legalese on this for months and nothing is accomplished. (Do you remember the last time an offshore dispute was settled in court, or a book acquiesced because of some law? Yeah, me neither.)

If anyone else gets into this situation, the dumbest thing you can do is have both you and your beard/partner simultaneously post about it on a forum. This first post probably emboldened Nitro and meant they would never reconsider. Elihu shot themselves in the foot. The best post made by this duo was Oli's above (#129). Too little too late. If he had just stuck to that, and Elihu had kept his mouth shut, he probably would have been paid.

 

[hazliam]

Fundamentally, the mediator sided with the party with which they share financial interests. Is anyone surprised by that? I've been accused of many things, and had my character called into question on obscure technicalities (Few have been true). These have included jurisdiction, internet protocol addresses, (phantom) insider information, getting on airplanes, being British, all which basically detract from the simple fundamental of this case: I placed sports bets that won and they were not honored.

I won't hold this valid. Fundamentally, then that could be said of every claim and that goes beyond BMR but any arbitration between companies and individual. They party paying would have a bigger incentive.

And seriously why do you even have 2 people talking about 1 account! You literally tanking your own mediation with that. They might not be sure you multi accounting, but you sure giving them a good reason to think so.

 

[oligibbons]

Nitro should just pay, but this thread is also a great lesson in exactly how NOT to handle a dispute with a bookmaker.

Nitro's lines can be manipulated. They ban people for doing this, yet also like to remain a BTC anonymous book. So, they don't like to do KYC but at the same time don't like having banned people coming back in the back door via someone else's account. If you use a VPN, they will be all over you even if they have no idea who you might actually be. They probably strongly suspected Oli's account was run by someone else and the fact that Elihu's very first post concedes Oli's was a "partner account" probably proved their suspicion. Nitro then keeps the $$ but provides some nonsensical reasons for it (i.e. banned jurisdiction). Elihu proceeds to go all legalese on this for months and nothing is accomplished. (Do you remember the last time an offshore dispute was settled in court, or a book acquiesced because of some law? Yeah, me neither.)

If anyone else gets into this situation, the dumbest thing you can do is have both you and your beard/partner simultaneously post about it on a forum. This first post probably emboldened Nitro and meant they would never reconsider. Elihu shot themselves in the foot. The best post made by this duo was Oli's above (#129). Too little too late. If he had just stuck to that, and Elihu had kept his mouth shut, he probably would have been paid.

Everyone's obviously entitled to their own opinion @rolandcorts. I think my likelihood of getting paid was low from the get-go. I believe in my first post I mentioned that, and the main reason for my involvement in this dispute was to highlight the behavior of Nitrogen. I'm not the first person they've done this to.. I definitely won't be the last either.

 

[oligibbons]

I won't hold this valid. Fundamentally, then that could be said of every claim and that goes beyond BMR but any arbitration between companies and individual. They party paying would have a bigger incentive.

And seriously why do you even have 2 people talking about 1 account! You literally tanking your own mediation with that. They might not be sure you multi accounting, but you sure giving them a good reason to think so.

Not certain what isn't valid here.

 

[oligibbons]

@hazliam I am still waiting for an official response from @BMR Disputes Matt. The last time he corresponded with me via email was 2.5 months ago. When I replied to every question he and Nitrogen had on this dispute.

If someone is given a fair shake of the stick, so to speak, wouldn't you expect a reply?

At a certain point he agreed that my bets were placed in good faith. I've been offered no proof that I in any way "took advantage" of Nitrogen. Although I'd admit to engaging in few rain dances to change the winds at Wrigley.

 

[hazliam]

Not certain what isn't valid here.

“Fundamentally, the mediator sided with the party with which they share financial interests. Is anyone surprised by that?”

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

Fundamentally, the mediator sided with the party with which they share financial interests. Is anyone surprised by that

That's not fair and out of line Oli.

I bent over backwards to find a way to get you paid. Especially after your initial claim was shown to be incorrect.

I explained the strategy and what was needed but you seemed reluctant to help me help you in the ways I was asking.

You were only wanting to tell me about laws and that Nitro were just stealing from a sharp player and flat out denying things Nitro were saying instead of helping with the reasoning we needed to win.


I was advocating for You, on your side. Nitrogen certainly would not feel like I sided with them at any point in our conversations.

Your Complaint said that you opened the account and did not use a VPN at all.

But as soon as Nitro challenged that claim you said that you had used a VPN after all.

When Nitro challenged that you opened the account from a CR IP, you suddenly agreed that it had been opened in another country.

When Nitrogen challenged the date you claimed you opened it, suddenly you come up with a new date.

When I realized that date could not be true, you came up with a third new date days later.

There was No Provable Truth at all in what we put forward to the book. That is your fault, not mine, and I still put in the best effort possible despite how impossible it was looking for anyone to believe you.


I should have given up when it was shown you were completely lying about the circumstances, so thanks for making me regret trying at all for you.

If you seriously believe all this is only about betting from a Costa Rican IP, then why have you not already spent the $50 to lodge a civil court claim? Just do it, unless you know you are both caught out liars.

@Mods, please consider banning these posters now?

 

[BMR Disputes Matt]

I am still waiting for an official response from @BMR Disputes Matt

Waiting for what?? You want a gold embossed card saying you were proven to be lying Oli??

Here's the final response you need officially. BMR can't help you any further than we have already tried to.

No need to thank me for the wasted time on this

 

[oligibbons]

That's not fair and out of line Oli.

I bent over backwards to find a way to get you paid. Especially after your initial claim was shown to be incorrect.

I explained the strategy and what was needed but you seemed reluctant to help me help you in the ways I was asking.

You were only wanting to tell me about laws and that Nitro were just stealing from a sharp player and flat out denying things Nitro were saying instead of helping with the reasoning we needed to win.


I was advocating for You, on your side. Nitrogen certainly would not feel like I sided with them at any point in our conversations.

Your Complaint said that you opened the account and did not use a VPN at all.

But as soon as Nitro challenged that claim you said that you had used a VPN after all.

When Nitro challenged that you opened the account from a CR IP, you suddenly agreed that it had been opened in another country.

When Nitrogen challenged the date you claimed you opened it, suddenly you come up with a new date.

When I realized that date could not be true, you came up with a third new date days later.

There was No Provable Truth at all in what we put forward to the book. That is your fault, not mine, and I still put in the best effort possible despite how impossible it was looking for anyone to believe you.


I should have given up when it was shown you were completely lying about the circumstances, so thanks for making me regret trying at all for you.

If you seriously believe all this is only about betting from a Costa Rican IP, then why have you not already spent the $50 to lodge a civil court claim? Just do it, unless you know you are both caught out liars.

@Mods, please consider banning these posters now?

@BMR Disputes Matt your recollection of the facts is a little off. Below is my initial request for assistance:

NitrogenSports free rolled themselves against me. I posted up and played for months. I beat them fair and square on NFL, NCAAF, and NCAAB (Full Games, First Halves, and First Quarters). I beat them, they limited my account. When I tried asking for the withdrawal of my funds they put me through the ringer. The ringer finally ended with them refusing to pay me and confiscating my winnings. I have worked in the gaming industry for 12 years and I have tried my best to mediate this dispute with them myself. They have been unwilling to engage other than tell me I played from a "banned jurisdiction" that isn't explicitly stated in their T&Cs. They made no attempt to block my activity from a "banned jurisdiction". They happily accepted my deposits and sports bets. I was even paid out a net of $30k in BTC. I was at some point profiled as a winning player and they confiscated the remaining 0.265090 BTC balance . Happy to give more details and would appreciate any help with this dispute.

To address your statements :

Your Complaint said that you opened the account and did not use a VPN at all.

I admitted from the beginning that I had placed bets from a work device that used a VPN. I quote myself from the second email in our exchange dated May 4th of this year

I usually have a VPN running for my job on my work PC. Switching between work vpn and native IP for the purposes of placing a bet seemed a little asinine. Many bets were placed via my cellphone which never uses a VPN. I registered on a device without a VPN.

When Nitrogen challenged the date you claimed you opened it, suddenly you come up with a new date.

This isn't a factual statement, you asked when I opened the account and I replied at the time after quickly scanning my emails for nitrogen emails

I had been a customer since at least 3rd November 2020. First email correspondence I have from them is on that date.

This is a factual statement and the word "at least" is fairly key here. When you later asked me for the exact date of the account opening I researched more thoroughly and found the original date of account creation and my first deposit date to prove that it was my account.

So at no point was there a changing of story. That is the narrative Nitrogen and yourself have been pushing. This isn't a fair representation of the case.

When Nitro challenged that you opened the account from a CR IP, you suddenly agreed that it had been opened in another country.

Again there is no record in our correspondence where I said that I'd opened the account in Costa Rica.

Can you please just address the fundamental question here: has Nitrogensports shown to you in any way that there is any evidence that the bets that I placed were not done so in good faith?

 

[BMR Genie]

I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to assist you further in this case @oligibbons