Ε.Ε.Ε.Π. - has he ever dealt with player-betting friction?

[cosmicsports]

We know about IBAS that it deals with this kind of case.
My own experience is that IBAS supports the bookies but for thirty years now it has been working on many cases and logically in some of them it should have taken the side of the players and won them (profit withholding - exclusions).
We also know that O-PAP. is not registered with IBAS and therefore IBAS is unable to deal with cases involving O-PAP.
Η Ε.Ε.Ε.Π. does anyone know if he has dealt with even one case and if he has dealt with what happened?
However, her site does not mention such a thing as an object of her responsibilities.

 

[defects]

Personally, I have never heard that the SPD dealt with any issue or dispute between a player and a company.
How much more has he contributed to the justification of the player.
However, I remember a case with an OPAP player who won a huge total amount by playing the same betting options on 5-6 cards.
There (KL) OPAP was pressed and refused to pay him everything, except for one ticket (instead of 6), citing his terms for the maximum profit he can pay to a player. The whole meaning of the "dispute" "It was whether the maximum profit was for the player or per card. The case should have gone to court and I do not remember who was justified in the end, but even then the name of the SPC was not heard anywhere.
Obviously this player has no practical role (other than paying its civil servants) and is just there for the shop window and to play it "sheriff" on the side of the players against the illegalities of the companies (for mass consumption commonly) without being natural.
If I'm wrong, please let anyone know above.

 

[cosmicsports]

Personally, I have never heard that the SPD dealt with any issue or dispute between a player and a company.
How much more has he contributed to the justification of the player.
However, I remember a case with an OPAP player who won a huge total amount by playing the same betting options on 5-6 cards.
There (KL) OPAP was pressed and refused to pay him everything, except for one ticket (instead of 6), citing his terms for the maximum profit he can pay to a player. The whole meaning of the "dispute" "It was whether the maximum profit was for the player or per card. The case should have gone to court and I do not remember who was justified in the end, but even then the name of the SPC was not heard anywhere.
Obviously this player has no practical role (other than paying its civil servants) and is just there for the shop window and to play it "sheriff" on the side of the players against the illegalities of the companies (for mass consumption commonly) without being natural.
If I'm wrong, please let anyone know above.

Don't do that.
He went straight to the regular courts.
I had also talked to his lawyer.
But they were large sums. And the other one in England with the Rangers was a big amount, a big case and he went to the regular courts (s.s. the Greek was acquitted, the Englishman I do not know).
How do we go to court for 180 euros or for an unfair exclusion in our opinion?

The most unfortunate "wronged" in history was an Australian.
He won about half a million in dogs but the bucks did not pay him because they considered the dog race suspicious. But if he had played her in the Australian mutual dog bet he would have gotten a little less (420,000-450,000) but neither cat nor damage.
In the trial, it turned out that the race was also set up and he had an uncle, the coach who set it up, and of course he did not get one.

But what does our friend E, E, E, P, represent on the subject?

 

[april13]

Personally, I have never heard that the SPD dealt with any issue or dispute between a player and a company.
How much more has he contributed to the justification of the player.
However, I remember a case with an OPAP player who won a huge total amount by playing the same betting options on 5-6 cards.
There (KL) OPAP was pressed and refused to pay him everything, except for one ticket (instead of 6), citing his terms for the maximum profit he can pay to a player. The whole meaning of the "dispute" "It was whether the maximum profit was for the player or per card. The case should have gone to court and I do not remember who was justified in the end, but even then the name of the SPC was not heard anywhere.
Obviously this player has no practical role (other than paying its civil servants) and is just there for the shop window and to play it "sheriff" on the side of the players against the illegalities of the companies (for mass consumption commonly) without being natural.
If I'm wrong, please let anyone know above.

Everything in Greece is a scam. There are no casino companies only scammers with the license of the state. Please someone give me one who won in opap play. LLC's are just casino employees. In Greek online casinos they simply give you a very small part of the deposits. You never win for any reason. Just don't play. It's all a scam.

 

[cosmicsports]

The biggest victims of state repression there are a) the bookies, b) the freelancers.
Hatzidakis crushed the last of them in one night.
You realize that if this happened to any others we would now have Grigoropoulos events.
See and Syriza cleaners, historical Kollades, Larissa tractors, etc.

Was the government wrong?
Let me just say this:
With simple one variable statistics he was right.
With component statistics he was wrong...

The punters even worse.
You have no right to talk, pat-cute.
But betting is allowed and they want their taxes.
Let them follow the Mormon doctrine of banning it altogether - I wouldn't talk.

 

[GATHS]

As long as the institutional framework runs, the complaints will run, it is a good thread to highlight the Works and days of the EEEP.
Complaint July 2023 for account closure without justification for the reasons with indefinite invocation of terms.
Until today I have not received a decision from the EEEP and consequently I cannot go to the consumer's advocate since the institutional framework defines the procedure of how you go as a consumer!! I can only legally.
If I sent them a link to an illegal site, would they block them at the same time???
First, honest tax collectors!!!