"For a price to be considered extortionate, it must be at least twice as high as the usual market price."
Is 30% double? Your 2.1 and 2.7 are not double either, so I have no idea where you see usury here.
It's normal for there to be fluctuations. Some consider the bet riskier than others. It also depends on how many people bet on it. The more who bet, the lower the odds. This has already been explained to you.
bonushunter97 wrote on 29.05.2025 at 15:49:of course this is a rip-off in the legal sense. read up on usury. 30% surcharge above the usual market rate, anything above that is usury.
Wikipedia says...
"Usury refers to the offer of a service for a significantly excessive consideration by exploiting the weakness of a contractual partner."
I do not recognize an "exploitation of a weak position". Betting Provider can be chosen freely. So I would say that odds fall under the free market economy.
Well then everything is tutti if you bet with the providers with the best odds, you could have looked GUTS yourself, but that would mean too much effort....
You can talk around it, make allusions as you like, the only person you can accuse of making a mistake is YOURSELF!
If you just wanted to puke or cry again, but talking about usury or rip-offs is simply ridiculous, as everyone else has actually pointed out to you 🙄
Hello, bissi pay attention to the netiquette here at Vatertag☝🏻😂 this is not your first statement in this direction today 😎✌🏻
Listen, I ALWAYS adapt my statements to my counterparts!
If I'm really over it, I have no problem admitting that... BUT if someone says something like that to me (just because the answer doesn't suit him, that it's not a rip-off and a joke):
"@druff @patzi you are beautiful birds!"
"do you work for the casinos or what is actually wrong with you?"
Up until these statements, I didn't make any insinuations, so maybe you shouldn't just read the last post ☝️
So please, why should I hold back then? 🤷
And Mr. Deputy Sheriff, where is your instruction with the friendly reference to netiquette for the person who started provoking? ☝️😙
I was almost expecting something like that 😎
Don't worry, it was meant with a wink - more of a light-hearted remark than a lecture.
In over 5 years, I've never taken the liberty of playing sheriff here - at the end of the day, I don't really care.
But hey, 'deputy sheriff' doesn't sound too bad - but I'm quite happy with my current job 😄✌️
Pneumatic wrote on 29.05.2025 at 20:52: I was almost expecting something like that 😎
Don't worry, it was meant with a wink - more of a light-hearted remark than a lecture.
In over 5 years, I've never taken the liberty of playing sheriff here - at the end of the day, I don't really care.
But hey, 'deputy sheriff' doesn't sound too bad - but I'm quite happy with my current job 😄✌️
I thought it was meant with a wink, but the second part made me wonder again 🧐
But you as an elected deputy sheriff, like in the counties of the United States... That would be a great match 💭💯💭
But after a moment's thought, I have to concede that your casual remark wasn't so wrong after all 😅
In my personal opinion, there's a big difference between "You're beautiful birds" or "Do you work for the casino?" and "You're not very bright" or "The swing was too close to the wall". One is said with a wink, the other attacks the person directly or calls them stupid.
Saphira wrote on 29.05.2025 at 21:27: In my personal opinion, there's a big difference between "You're beautiful birds" or "Do you work for the casino?" and "You're not very bright" or "The swing was too close to the wall". One is said with a wink, the other attacks the person directly or calls them stupid.
yes, and provocative from the start. as if he were defending the casinos, which make a fortune with such bets where they give themselves an excessive house advantage.
Well then everything is tutti if you bet with the providers with the best odds, you could have looked GUTS yourself, but that would mean too much effort....
You can talk around it, make allusions as you like, the only person you can accuse of making a mistake is YOURSELF!
If you just wanted to puke or cry again, but talking about usury or rip-offs is simply ridiculous, as everyone else has actually pointed out to you 🙄
I get it, the swing was too close to the wall...
you post wins on 5 cent bets - pretty big balls here for playing like a toddler 😂 i wouldn't care about the odds on the bets either
i posted the whole thing to warn people so that they don't think that the odds at Bet365 are as good as on popular markets.
you post wins on 5 cent bets - pretty big balls here for playing like a toddler 😂 with the bets i wouldn't care about the odds either
i posted the whole thing to warn people so that they don't think that the odds at Bet365 are as good as on popular markets.
What does the bet on winning pictures have to do with the discussion please? Do they say anything? You haven't posted any winning pictures yet, so you're betting €0. Are you playing like a toddler? Regardless of the fact that this is complete nonsense - what you post here can't always correspond to reality.
Think seriously about whether it's awesome if you have to flex with high bets or if you have to use your bet as an argument because you have no other arguments. I also like to play high stakes, but I know that it's very stupid. That's why I don't really flex with it.
The warning is well-intentioned in itself and always welcome, but what you just don't understand is that it's not usury. You didn't respond to my counter-argument (that usury is only defined from 100% markup), although you said that from 30% it would already be usury.
Some providers offer better odds because they have different conditions, for example. If your player does not play, e.g. due to injury, your money is gone. With others, the odds are 1.0.
What does the bet on the winning pictures have to do with the discussion please? Do they say anything? You haven't posted any winning pictures yet, so you bet 0€. Are you playing like a toddler? Regardless of the fact that this is complete nonsense - what you post here can't always correspond to reality.
Think seriously about whether it's awesome if you have to flex with high bets or if you have to use your bet as an argument because you have no other arguments. I also like to play high stakes, but I know that it's very stupid. That's why I don't really flex with it.
The warning is well-intentioned in itself and always welcome, but what you just don't understand is that it's not usury. You didn't respond to my counter-argument (that usury is only defined from 100% markup), although you said that from 30% it would already be usury.
yes, because you have only read one side of the coin. here is the excerpt from the penal code:
As an objective element of the offense, there must be a conspicuous disproportion between performance and consideration. The subjective criterion of § 879 ABGB is realized through the exploitation of carelessness, predicament, weakness of intellect, inexperience or excitement of mind.[sup] [21] [/sup]
According to recent case law, however, even slight negligence on the part of the usurer should suffice.
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
maestro i am from austria - here are sports betting games of skill - williamhill is not a curacao bude but a listed company
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
do you work for the casinos or what's wrong with you? i didn't play in some curacao joint but with the Provider known for the best odds.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Liked this post:
Max_Bet
Yes, then always fill up where it's most expensive
Usury - when is a price too high? | Consumer advice center.de
"For a price to be considered extortionate, it must be at least twice as high as the usual market price."
Is 30% double? Your 2.1 and 2.7 are not double either, so I have no idea where you see usury here.
It's normal for there to be fluctuations. Some consider the bet riskier than others. It also depends on how many people bet on it. The more who bet, the lower the odds. This has already been explained to you.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
Wikipedia says...
"Usury refers to the offer of a service for a significantly excessive consideration by exploiting the weakness of a contractual partner."
I do not recognize an "exploitation of a weak position". Betting Provider can be chosen freely. So I would say that odds fall under the free market economy.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
Where does it say that in opening post? Irrespective of this, in DE this is an unregulated provider.
Since you had access to William Hill, this only underlines YOUR inability 😱
Well then everything is tutti if you bet with the providers with the best odds, you could have looked GUTS yourself, but that would mean too much effort....
You can talk around it, make allusions as you like, the only person you can accuse of making a mistake is YOURSELF!
If you just wanted to puke or cry again, but talking about usury or rip-offs is simply ridiculous, as everyone else has actually pointed out to you 🙄
I get it, the swing was too close to the wall...
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Liked this post:
bonushunter97,
JJepsa96
Hello, please pay attention to the netiquette here at Vatertag☝🏻😂 this is not your first statement in this direction today 😎✌🏻
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
Listen, I ALWAYS adapt my statements to my counterparts!
If I'm really over it, I have no problem admitting that... BUT if someone says something like that to me (just because the answer doesn't suit him, that it's not a rip-off and a joke):
"@druff @patzi you are beautiful birds!"
"do you work for the casinos or what is actually wrong with you?"
Up until these statements, I didn't make any insinuations, so maybe you shouldn't just read the last post ☝️
So please, why should I hold back then? 🤷
And Mr. Deputy Sheriff, where is your instruction with the friendly reference to netiquette for the person who started provoking? ☝️😙
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
Don't worry, it was meant with a wink - more of a light-hearted remark than a lecture.
In over 5 years, I've never taken the liberty of playing sheriff here - at the end of the day, I don't really care.
But hey, 'deputy sheriff' doesn't sound too bad - but I'm quite happy with my current job 😄✌️
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
I thought it was meant with a wink, but the second part made me wonder again 🧐
But you as an elected deputy sheriff, like in the counties of the United States... That would be a great match 💭💯💭
But after a moment's thought, I have to concede that your casual remark wasn't so wrong after all 😅
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
yes, and provocative from the start. as if he were defending the casinos, which make a fortune with such bets where they give themselves an excessive house advantage.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
you post wins on 5 cent bets - pretty big balls here for playing like a toddler 😂 i wouldn't care about the odds on the bets either
i posted the whole thing to warn people so that they don't think that the odds at Bet365 are as good as on popular markets.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
What does the bet on winning pictures have to do with the discussion please? Do they say anything? You haven't posted any winning pictures yet, so you're betting €0. Are you playing like a toddler? Regardless of the fact that this is complete nonsense - what you post here can't always correspond to reality.
Think seriously about whether it's awesome if you have to flex with high bets or if you have to use your bet as an argument because you have no other arguments. I also like to play high stakes, but I know that it's very stupid. That's why I don't really flex with it.
The warning is well-intentioned in itself and always welcome, but what you just don't understand is that it's not usury. You didn't respond to my counter-argument (that usury is only defined from 100% markup), although you said that from 30% it would already be usury.
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
i feel ripped off
Nobody has liked this post so far
yes, because you have only read one side of the coin. here is the excerpt from the penal code:
As an objective element of the offense, there must be a conspicuous disproportion between performance and consideration. The subjective criterion of § 879 ABGB is realized through the exploitation of carelessness, predicament, weakness of intellect, inexperience or excitement of mind.[sup] [21] [/sup]
According to recent case law, however, even slight negligence on the part of the usurer should suffice.
And this is not about suing for it.
This post has been translated automatically