Sports betting in general: i feel ripped off (Page 3)

bonushunter97 wrote on May 30th, 2025 at 12:24 pm:

yes because you 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

frapi07 wrote on May 30, 2025 at 12:47 pm:
Read through the excerpt and seriously ask yourself what criteria fit there. It just doesn't fit. Here are a few examples:

... a predicament: The contracting party sees no other option at the time of the conclusion of the contract and, in the absence of alternatives, agrees to the transaction --> does not fit, because you have alternatives!!!

... a inexperience of another. An example of this is a foreigner who rents an apartment without knowing the local housing market. The newcomer, on the other hand, cannot rely on this despite a lack of business experience. What is meant is not inexperience in a specific business area, but a general lack of knowledge of the world of life and business --> does not fit either.

I don't really see that the other points fit either. Incidentally, these points are not sufficient to fulfill the offense of usury. There must also be intent, which means that the Provider exploits the unfavorable situation of a third party with exploitative intent. I don't see that as a given either.


Usury is when you're thirsty and you can't move from the spot and otherwise can't get water. I see that and take advantage of it by offering you water for €20. That's usury because I'm taking advantage of your emergency situation and the price is more than double.

In addition, you said that usury applies from 30% - but the consumer advice center (there is almost no better source) says that it starts at 100%. How can you simply claim that I am only showing one side of the coin? You were factually wrong and that's how you justified the usury.

This post has been translated automatically

gagapapamama wrote on May 30th, 2025 at 1:04 pm:

Did you explain that soon or should we read a few more novels. You shouldn't have bet, that's easy.

This post has been translated automatically