1xSlots Casino Review

The player from Argentina had deposited using Astropay but found the withdrawal option disabled when attempting to cash out. Despite being advised by support to deposit a minimum amount using another method, the withdrawal option remained disabled. The player verified his account and stated that he had accumulated winnings with real money. However, he lost all his balance before the issue was resolved. The complaint was ultimately rejected as the player stopped responding to further inquiries.

The player from Argentina faced delays in withdrawing money from 1xSlots Casino, which cited technical problems. The casino received deposits via AstroPay but did not process withdrawals through it, instead asking him to deposit into another wallet that required documentation he did not have. The Complaints Team explained that the casino might not offer the same methods for withdrawals as for deposits and advised using an alternative payment method with a verification deposit. Following this advice, the player successfully withdrew his money and expressed satisfaction with the resolution.

The player from India deposited money in the casino on 08/05/2024, but the deposit has not been credited to date. Despite multiple emails, the casino claims their specialist is looking into it, causing a delay of over a month.

The player from Argentina was unable to make a withdrawal via Astropay, despite having used it for a deposit. After consulting with support, they were unable to provide an estimate on when the withdrawal option would be available. The issue appeared to be widespread. We advised the player to use an available withdrawal method, but the player did not respond to further inquiries. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response.

The player from Argentina was unable to access his funds for more than 15 days due to an ongoing verification process. Despite sending numerous emails for assistance as advised, he received no response or solution. The casino confirmed the player's account was verified, and he successfully withdrew 194,267 ARS. However, his account was banned from future play. Since the player confirmed the withdrawal, the complaint was closed as resolved by us.

The player from Argentina had used AstroPay to deposit funds but discovered that the same method was not available for withdrawal, which left him unable to access his funds. The Complaints Team had explained that the availability of payment methods was influenced by factors beyond the casino's control, such as licensing authority, geolocation, and bank restrictions. The team had asked the player if he had been informed about any alternative withdrawal methods and if his account had been previously verified. However, due to the player's lack of response to these inquiries, we were unable to further investigate or resolve the issue. The complaint was consequently rejected.

The player from Argentina had had an issue with his withdrawal option being disabled on an online casino, despite having used Astropay for depositing money and having attempted to deposit additional funds through another method. After our team's intervention and explanation about the various factors affecting payment methods, the player had confirmed that the issue had been resolved. Therefore, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Argentina had discovered the withdrawal option, Astropay, deactivated when they wanted to withdraw their winnings. After the Complaints Team had explained the factors that could affect the availability of payment methods and asked for more information, the player had informed that the issue was resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Argentina had accused the online casino of fraudulent practices due to withdrawal restrictions. The player claimed that the casino was forcing them to use the same deposit method, AstroPay, for withdrawals and then disabling this option. We sought further information from the player to investigate the issue, but the player failed to respond to our queries. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of communication from the player's side.

The player from Brazil had faced challenges with depositing money to the casino. He had sent 100 reais via PIX, which was deducted from his bank account but not credited to his casino account. Despite his bank having confirmed the transfer to the casino's intermediary bank, Just Payments, the casino did not acknowledge receipt. The player had experienced difficulties communicating with the casino due to language barriers and lack of response. Eventually, the issue was resolved.

The player from Japan had been unable to play or withdraw funds due to a long-pending identity verification. Despite numerous emails over three weeks, he had only received a standard reply, while his tournament prize of 1000 euros expired during this period. He sought the reinstatement of the expired prize money. After a thorough investigation, we found that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions. The player had been excluded from the tournament due to a fact of attempted fraudulent actions. Consequently, his winnings were forfeited. The complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from Vietnam had deposited 1 million VND into the 1xSlot's website but the money hadn't been credited to his account. Despite having provided all necessary transfer documents as requested by the casino, his issue had remained unresolved for a week. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation and not to deposit any more funds until the issue was resolved. Subsequently, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from India submitted a withdrawal request, but it remains unprocessed after one day. The provider responded that they need to check the issue and provided no timeframe for resolution. The player suspects the delay is intentional in the hopes that he cancels the withdrawal. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from South Africa has not been receiving cashback despite meeting the required conditions and making no withdrawals during new settlement periods. Multiple conversations with support have resulted in no resolution, with the latest ending abruptly. The complaint was rejected based on the player's request.

The player from Argentina is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing verification. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Chile is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Bangladesh is complaining about the lengthy verification process. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions. We’ve reopened this complaint as per the player’s request. We've rejected it once again because he failed to pass the verification.

The player from Slovenia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings. The casino failed to respond to this complaint and we were forced to close it as 'unresolved'. As per the casino request, the complaint was reopened, however there was not any satisfactory resolution for the both parties and we were left with rejecting the complaint.

The player from Germany is dissatisfied with a no deposit bonus because he has to make a deposit in order to receive winnings. This rule is very common and not unfair, therefore we rejected this complaint.

The player, Valentin, who is already self-excluded at many other casinos, wanted to self-exclude himself at this casino as well. When he tried to close his account, the support team representative told him they couldn't do it and advised him to contact a blocking specialist. After he did so, he sent documents for verification to prove it was really him who's was trying to close his account but lacked a utility bill. In the meantime, while he waited to be blocked, he had lost another €160. Eventually, he managed to block his account but he wished the return of the €160 since they didn't block him earlier nor suggested the alternative verification, which the casino provides(video conference verification). There is no further information on this case.