Nonikunyu

Nonikunyu

Nonikunyu

Nonikunyu

Hello @Feuchtebuxxe

I'm sorry for the late response; somehow, this slipped through my notifications.
As you mentioned, the rule clearly states:
“Minimum odds on the last (losing) match/selection that was lost cannot be higher than 5x." It says last selection, not “last Same Game Multi.”
I understand how this could be confusing at first, but the purpose of this rule is very specific. It exists to prevent slips structured like this:
1.01x ✅
1.01x ✅
1.01x ✅
1.01x ✅
1000x ❌
Total odds: 1000.5x
Without this rule, someone could stack several very low, almost guaranteed odds and then add one extremely high and unrealistic selection at the end just to artificially inflate the total odds.
That’s exactly what this rule is designed to prevent.So the restriction applies strictly to the last losing selection or a match, regardless of whether it’s part of a Same Game Multi or a regular pick.

Additionally, 

The bet that you've asked about (sport:548323840) would not be winning since it has 2 losing selections.

Best regards,
DragoslavP.

I understand the frustration, but I want to keep this fact-based.
 
The rules were clearly stated for the giveaway, including the requirement for a Same Game Multi with at least 3 selections. Despite that, there are cases where entries that did not fully meet these requirements were still accepted as winners.
 
From my side, I have already checked the 10 winners and their bets are included in the thread. However, I still find some situations questionable.
 
For example, I previously opened a topic where a user won despite posting something that had nothing to do with the giveaway, and the response was that it had already been paid out so nothing could be done.
 
I also raised a separate topic regarding the giveaway by dragoslav, where a winner did not follow the rules, but it was ignored and no further clarification was given.
 
Now in this week’s case with Jake, I also noticed inconsistencies. One user won the main prize ($1000 Stake City), then immediately after also won Bonus Clash ($100), and then Bucks Bunny Bash ($500), all in consecutive giveaways. At the same time, there is an argument about fairness because some users apparently did not understand how a Same Game Multi works, yet a user in the same system is able to win three giveaways in a row under Jake.
 
I’m not accusing anyone, but when combined with previous cases, it starts to feel inconsistent.
 
Clear and consistent rule enforcement would help avoid confusion and maintain trust in future giveaways.
“Fairness” — after leniency for SGMs and explanations about fairness… the same user still wins 3 times in a row under Jake. Where is the fairness in that?

Harumichi Bouya

Nonikunyu

Nonikunyu

Nonikunyu

1. 1st quarter
2. under
3. even
4. Germany
ID: Nonikunyu

1. 6
2. no one
3. 1
4. Draw
Nonikunyu
 

1.70x 
Nonikunyu

casino:376717466440
Nonikunyu

casino:376717466440
Nonikunyu

casino:375510234773

The rave By No limit city
 
Nonikunyu

13x casino:366908840929
15x casino:366909740166
17x casino:366910337647

Nonikunyu

casino:349869499998

casino:337041572781