The 4 valid dispute types
1. External source error.
The API or source we used published incorrect information, and the bet was resolved based on that information. You can prove it by showing the official source.
Example: API Sports published "Real Madrid 2-1 Barcelona" while the official score is "Real Madrid 1-2 Barcelona" (confirmed by La Liga's official records). If you bet on Barcelona and lost because of the API error, your dispute is valid.
2. Ambiguous event wording.
The event was worded in a way that allows two interpretations. You defend one interpretation; the admin ruled for another.
Example: "Mbappé will be Top Scorer this season". You understood "top scorer in Ligue 1". The admin ruled on "top scorer in the European Cup". If you can argue your interpretation in good faith (with screenshots of the event page), your dispute is valid.
3. Canceled or postponed event not detected.
The real-world event was canceled or postponed, but our system didn't detect it in time and still resolved the bet based on outdated data.
Example: an Africa Cup match was postponed because of a storm. Our system didn't receive the update and resolved the bet as if the match "didn't take place" - which is wrong since it was simply postponed. More details on canceled events.
4. Suspected fraud or manipulation.
You have concrete elements suggesting that manipulation influenced the resolution (suspicious opponent account, compromised source, abnormal behavior).
Example: you notice that your opponent bet exactly at closing time on an event where the external source was deliberately modified right after. Valid dispute with screenshots + timestamps.
Invalid reasons - what a dispute is not
1. "I'm disputing because I lost, it's unfair." You bet, you take a risk. If you lose, that's the game. Not a reason to file a dispute.
2. "My opponent just got lucky, it's not deserved." Luck is part of betting. Not a valid reason.
3. "I changed my mind about the wording's interpretation after the resolution." You had the chance to understand the wording before betting. After the fact, it's too late.
4. "The score is correct but I dispute how the commission was applied." The commission is fixed based on your stake tier. Not grounds for a dispute.
5. "I'm disputing preventively, just in case." Without a precise factual reason, the dispute will be rejected. And you risk being sanctioned if this behavior becomes recurring.
The gray area: where it gets ambiguous
Some cases are subtly contentious. Our admin rules with a fairness-driven approach:
- Score shown by 2 different sources: the admin refers to the league/event's official source. If they diverge, the recognized authority prevails.
- Long event with multiple phases (matches played over several sets, etc.): the wording must be clear. If it's ambiguous, the admin may accept the dispute and cancel the bet (full refund).
- Interpretation of "first scorer": in soccer, it's the player who scores the first goal - own goals included or not depending on the exact wording.
When the ambiguity is legitimate, the admin rules by canceling the bet rather than declaring a winner. It's the fairest option.
Consequences of abusive disputes
If you systematically file unfounded disputes, the system keeps a record of them:
- 3 rejected disputes within a month: automatic warning.
- 10 rejected disputes over 6 months: temporary dispute suspension (you can't file any for 30 days).
- Repeated malicious disputes (false reasons, fake evidence): heavy sanction, possible exclusion.
Filing a dispute is a legitimate right. But it's a serious tool, not a "replay my luck" button.