Thank you for the further reply.
The phrase "cross-book activity" is exactly why I remain confused but you have now added a further phrase -"exploitative play" - which you have failed to define.
Sportbet.one markets itself as a no-KYC / anonymous crypto sportsbook where a wallet address is sufficient and the user does not need to provide identity documents. I therefore do not understand how Sportbet.one could establish that I or anyone else placed corresponding bets at other sportsbooks.
There is an important distinction between:
analysing my betting pattern on Sportbet.one;
observing market-wide odds differences or odds movement; and
proving cross-book arbitrage by me personally.
The first two may create an internal risk inference eg how often do I make bets that beat Closing Line Value, but they do not establish that I placed bets elsewhere.
The disputed bets were single-outcome tennis match-winner bets placed only on Sportbet.one, at odds advertised and accepted by Sportbet.one. They were later marked "Arbitrage," but no factual basis has been provided for how single-outcome bets on Sportbet.one became cross-book arbitrage.
I also note that the explanation now refers to "arbitrage and exploitative play," whereas the bets in my account were marked as "Arbitrage." If Sportbet.one is no longer saying this was actual cross-book arbitrage, but instead some broader category of "exploitative play," then I would ask where that is clearly defined in the terms and how it applies to accepted tennis match-winner bets.
I accept that Sportbet.one may not want to disclose proprietary systems or technical triggers. But that is different from refusing to provide any basic factual basis for confiscating 595.3485 USDT.
The unresolved question remains simple: what factual basis does Sportbet.one have for saying that these specific single-outcome tennis bets constituted arbitrage, rather than ordinary accepted sportsbook bets that the operator later chose not to honour?
And I would also point out that your marketing of a no-kyc casino is certainly open to question. "No middlemen" and "When you place a bet, the contract locks your funds by moving them into a temporary, on-chain escrow controlled by that contract. Nobody (not even the casino) can touch those funds unless the contract logic allows it." are certainly not in keeping with a casino that routinely confiscates players balances.