incognito123

Let's go through this a little bit.. In order of your questions/statements. 1. "reach" is one possible interpretation of the word "saa". In this context it could mean get/reach/have/etc.. The point (and MY interpretation) is that the winner is the one who gets/reaches/is assigned/has the REQUIRED AMOUNT (or more) of electors on the ELECTION DAY. Why would I make such a bet? Because I believed the mail-in voting would go Biden's way, but it would also delay everything and that there'd be no winner on election day unless it was Trump. I figure, hey, it's most likely a push, but a chance for a win too. Good bet if you go by the terms agreed. -Please feel free to tell me what YOU think it means. -Also, if this is about PERSONAL opinions, what about the opinions of your collegue (see attached pics) who has since abruptly stopped communicating with me (even though he is still active on this board). Are you only allowed to express PERSONAL opinions if they are against the player? 2. Once again you try to throw this off by claiming I'm after money on a bad bet. I HAVE STATED I AM OK IF THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO CHARITY! My interested is seeing that you don't get money by "stealing" it from bettors. I'm not the one fighting to keep the money wrongly. I believe UNIBET made a bad bet terms and is trying to fix it retroactively.. as you did for later bets, they had different terms, didn't they? -Please answer instead of dodging this 3. You say "An argument can be made that Biden did reach the required number of votes on election day, as he won the election and all votes were cast on or before election day. " ... the BET SAYS NOTHING ABOUT VOTES! IT'S TALKING ABOUT ELECTORS! Besides, if we start making up arguments, how about this: Many of the votes were NOT cast on election day, they were mail-in votes, so they should not count... <-- I'm not making that assertion, I'm just showing you that anyone can make a stupid argument, but that doesn't make the argument true. 4. You say: "I agree it could be more clear - which is also why it was later clarified/elaborated - but I'm afraid you simply put don't have a case." -So you admit the terms were modified later, atleast we agree on something. The terms were clear, you're just pulling T&C out of you a$$ to somehow justify retroactively changing a bet. My bet slip says one thing, you interpret/change it to say another.. <--- THIS IS MY CASE!!

@psrquack I had a on 2020 election with Unibet, since Unibet offered the best terms: A bet on the election result being sorted on the election day or the bet would be void. It had one clause: "Winner decided by who reaches the required number of Electoral Votes on Election Day. ". I figured that if the election happened in a day, Trump would take it.. Biden could only win by a longer process (and that's exactly what happened). However, sometime after placing my bet, Unibet changed the terms. Any new bets had a clause of "If there is no clear winner on election day the offer will be settled as soon as a candidate is projected to win beyond reasonable doubt". Naturally I did not place any further bets with these terms. Unibet then decided that the original terms would not apply, and that they'd be augmented by the addition. And they claimed me trying to get them to respect the original terms (which meant the result in the bet being void) was just trying to get money back from a bad bet. I tried appealing to MGA, even offering to donate any money received to charity, as this is about principle and not money. MGA just rubber stamped Unibet's view and didn't even address my points. Seems like a fair "unbiased arbitrator" to me. And it's exactly why I'll keep coming back to this and other forums to remind people of this. @Stubbe-Unibet I fell for that once.. I took my complaint off to the side, into PMs.. and then you guys strung me along until dumping me . So no thanks on that. Let's just talk publicly. Please explain to me in simple terms how you can change the terms of my bet retroactively?

Just a reminder to everyone. Unibet can make a bet with you on a set of terms. Then later one-sidedly change the terms. MGA seems to be in on it. I sent pics of the terms on my betting slip and it was just ignored, both Unibet and MGA merely said "These are the terms", referring to the new terms which do not appear on my betting slip. Poker and other games are OK, there the rules are programmed in. But don't put yourself in a position to be robbed by Unibet by betting with them. Plenty of other sites out there.

I got this back from eCOGRA. Now it makes sense why Unibet does not want to engage me officially, but rather by sniping here in the forums and PMs. If they can keep me from completing their formal complaints process (which I've asked several times about), they can stop me from making a 3rd party complaint. Very sneaky on their part. Dispute Form Received Thank you for submitting your dispute to eCOGRA. A member of the ADR team will contact you within 7 days to request any additional information, documents or evidence to support your claim. eCOGRA will: • Close the dispute if you have not completed the site’s internal complaints procedure.

"up yours"? You mean "up to you" I think? Anyway, I've made the complaint now since I'd rather hear a 3rd party comment on this. I realize they might be just a rubber stamp for the gambling companies, but then I'll know. I've already made the decision to donate any money I glean from Unibet to charity so they can't use stupid arguments like "you're just trying to make a buck off a bad bet". This is about PRINCIPLE! If I lose the eCogra thing and am unhappy with it, I can still go around the internet when I'm bored, telling my story about unibet on any forum that'll care to listen. I will make Unibet lose the money they stole one way or another. I could've accepted a loss via mediation, but not anymore, not after the runaround "customer service" has given me. @ReCorpHHäpeäisit, annat lupauksia mitä et näköjään edes aikonut pitää.

Ha.. the word S-C-4-M is apparently banned when used in Unibet forums. That's one easy way to make the company look more respectable.

@Stubbe-Unibet @ReCorpH Is this the final word now from Unibet? And why do you never finish a conversation.. you throw a message out there and then nothing. I can understand you disagreeing with me (though you earlier agreed, which is weird, but not so weird when you figure that you must say what Unibet tells you to). But what is the point of you saying you agree, and promising to help and then doing nothing? I was promised that if the issue is not resolved to my satisfaction, I'll be atleast helped in making a complaint to a 3rd party. But all I've received is a runaround and not a single piece of advice on how to proceed, even when I directly ask for advice, like this: Have I now completed the Unibet complaints process or is there still something I need to do before I can proceed to a 3rd party and say "I have completed the complaints process".. Unibet has so far: -Changed the terms of the bet unilaterally and retroactively -In chat and email have refused to properly consider my complaint -Told me they agree with me (unofficially), but officially tell me that I'm wrong -Promised help with sorting this out, but have done nothing. Whether I'm right or wrong on this issue, how do you think you've done in customer service? Is Unibet just a ❤️♥️❤️ company in the guise of a real one? I don't mean this in a trolly way.. but with this level of isolating yourselves from feedback, how do you differ from scammers?

2) Unless otherwise specified below or in conjunction with the bet offer, all bets which fall under this section are valid until a result is officially declared regardless of any delays in the announcement, extra voting rounds, etc. which would be needed for the outcome to be announced. ^^ In my opinion, I have a bet offer which specifically mentions the timeline of "ELECTION DAY". There's no delay in announcement as the election never reached a point where an announcement on winner could be made on ELECTION DAY. I understand Unibet will interpret things their own way.. but saying I'm just trying to recover a bad bet when it's clear I could not win it anymore is reading malice into my actions that isn't there. If you examine your records, I contacted Unibet right after the election about the push, even when it was still looking strong for Trump as I believed the bet was void. Therefore I feel I have acted in good faith and consistent with the terms agreed in the original offer instead of trying to maximize my own profit at any cost as is hinted by your reply. Because we both have a different opinion on this, I would like to take this to a 3rd party, so please let me know if there's some further Unibet complaint process I need to complete.

Damn this thing for not allowing edits to posts.. Anyway, the slip (in Finnish) states that you have to reach the required number of electoral votes.. which are not votes given by people, but electoral seats handed out to the winner or each state.. hence there's no need to count 100% of the votes to determine the winner of an election, you can determine it well beforehand as has happened in the past as well. But this time it didn't happen.. states never finished count as votes were coming into battleground states well after election. I believe we agree on the same interpretation of the terms.. I just believe you're saying: "You should've known better, even if it doesn't say so on the slip" And I'm saying that someone made a mistake making the terms a little loose and now you're trying to cover for that mistake by blaming the customers.

Fix: more ELECTORAL VOTES (which is not votes, but won states) required number ELECTORAL VOTES (which is not votes, but won states)

Hi, first of all, you and recorpH were agreeing with me earlier: https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Off-topic/US-election-thread/m-p/362161#M15425 What changed? Even later, when discussing this issue in PMs, reCorpH seems this like I do.. what changed? Secondly, the terms CLEARLY state that the person who gets (not reaches, sorry if I used that word in the translation) more ELECTORAL VOTES (which is not votes, but won states).I made the bet in the belief that if Trump would win, he would win by securing the states on election day, but if Biden was to win, he would secure the electoral votes later after lengthy legal battles. As you say, Unibet also understood that this is a fair interpretation of the terms of the bet as they changed them later to include the " If there is no clear winner on election day the offer will be settled as soon as a candidate is projected to win beyond reasonable doubt" part was added to most people's bets, but not mine. Funny how a phrase that is integral to how Unibet decided the bet is not visible anywhere on my betting slip. Yes, it may seem like a stupid loophole in the bet terms, but you're the one who put it there.. why would I not bet even at the lower odds that Unibet offers me when I have a chance of push as well as a win. If I had known you would not respect the terms of the bets you make, I would have gone to any of the bookers that offered better odds (most of them did). Also, you are actually the first person in the last 4 months to even try to offer a decent counterargument, thanks for that. So far it's been nothing but a runaround. If this is your final word on the matter, can I now say I've gone through the complaints process at Unibet? I've emailed, used chat and the forums and it seems I'm getting nowhere and my only way forward is a complaint. But one of the first things they ask is if I've completed the complaints process for the bookie.

I've actually posted to that thread, that's when my +4month runaround with the Forum staff started. They took me aside, agreed with my point and then nothing happened except promises to get this sorted "Tomorrow" or "next week". I would've understood it if it was just one promised deadline that was missed, but it was several, with nothing to show for it again.

I made a bet in the 2020 US Presidential elections and my slip had the following terms (in finnish): "Winner decided by who reaches the required number of Electoral Votes on Election Day" (see below) Since it's clear to everyone now that nobody won on election day, one assumes the bet is a push. So imagine my surprise when Unibet judges the bet as lost. I try to find out why on earth and I get a reply that the terms of my bet have changed and are now as follows: "Winner decided by who reaches the required number of Electoral Votes on Election Day. If there is no clear winner on election day the offer will be settled as soon as a candidate is projected to win beyond reasonable doubt" I tried contacting Unibet about this, but email support wont answer, chat support just repeats the new terms and says "we're sorry you're frustrated" and forum staff just clean these messages from the forum and give me the runaround using private messages (I can post screenshots to illustrate this if challenged). Is anyone else experiencing a similar issue? I am going to make a complaint to the authorities about this, but if there's more victims out there, i'd like to know before I submit my complaint. Maybe multiple people complaining about the same thing at the same time has a better effect than just little old me doing it.