Silver Oak Casino Review

The player from the US queried a reversal on their recent winnings and asked for an explanation. The complaint was resolved after the Complaints Team contacted the casino multiple times. The casino cited delays from third-party payment providers due to high withdrawal volumes. Eventually, the player received partial payment and confirmed the successful resolution of the issue.

The US player had won $161 and had tried to withdraw the winnings, but the transaction wasn't processed. The player had reported that the casino hadn't responded to their multiple attempts to contact customer support. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, we were forced to reject the case due to lack of response from the player. The player had later reopened the complaint, denying the casino's claim of multiple bonuses without deposits and insisting on the initial bonus only. However, the casino had provided evidence of the player's violation of terms and conditions regarding multiple no-deposit bonuses. Therefore, we were forced to reject the complaint again.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team had informed her that withdrawal processing could sometimes take up to two weeks and advised her to be patient. However, despite extending the response timer and reaching out to the player, there was no response from her end. Consequently, due to the lack of communication from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Illinois had won $131 using the casino's weekly cashback option. Despite initial approval by a manager, her winnings were later denied due to claims of multiple free bonuses. She had provided a detailed account of her transactions, including her last deposit of $30. Upon reviewing the casino's terms and conditions, we found that players could not redeem multiple free bonuses consecutively without making a real-money deposit in between. As such, we concluded that the casino had denied the player's winnings in compliance with their terms. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from California had participated in a raffle organized by the online casino and won a share of a Bitcoin prize. However, she was dissatisfied with the $50 she had received, believing she should have received more. After reviewing the promo details, we had clarified that the Bitcoin prize was to be divided among multiple winners, not necessarily equally. We confirmed that the casino had acted correctly and paid out as advertised. As such, we had closed the complaint since the player had received her share of the Bitcoin prize.

The player from Minnesota had been unable to withdraw her winnings of $105 from an online casino. Despite having deposited $10 in Bitcoin to verify her address and having received manager approval, her withdrawal had not been reflected in her account. She had made several unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the casino via email. The Complaints Team had investigated her case and found that the player had violated the casino's terms and conditions by redeeming multiple free chips consecutively without making a real-money deposit in between. As a result, the casino had returned her last deposit of $10 to her balance and she had been unable to withdraw any winnings. The complaint was subsequently rejected as the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The Missouri player had encountered a delayed response and inaccurate credit from the casino when he attempted to withdraw $300 in winnings. Despite an email that claimed $339 in the account, the player reported that there was nothing there. The player's account had been verified and the winnings had been accumulated from bonuses. However, the casino had provided evidence that the player had claimed multiple no deposit bonuses consecutively without a real-money deposit between them, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, we had concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with its rules, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Nebraska had over $600 in winnings at an online casino. Despite having his ID verification approved, he was unable to withdraw his funds. We attempted to gather more information about his account verification status, the source of his winnings, and his last communication with the casino. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal of $2500 at the beginning of January and had not received a response, nor the funds two weeks later. Despite having confirmed that she had passed KYC verification and had successfully withdrawn before, the casino did not process her request. After the player had raised a complaint, we had contacted the casino, and the casino representative had claimed that the delay was due to the need for confirmation of the player's bank wire details. The player had provided the necessary information, and the casino representative stated that the withdrawal had been processed. After some additional delays, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. The issue had been resolved successfully.

The player from Minnesota had experienced a payout delay with two withdrawal requests. The casino's customer service had given a payout date, but had only stated that it would be updated in the next 48 hours. The player had confirmed that they had not made any successful withdrawals from the casino in the past, they had passed the KYC verification, and they had used bonuses for the winnings. The player was later able to receive the payouts, however, the casino had sent the funds to an old wallet address, not the updated one. We concluded that this likely happened due to the payment being in process for a long time, before the wallet details were updated. The issue was resolved then.

The player from Japan had encountered issues with withdrawing her funds from an online casino. Despite having submitted all necessary documents in July 2023, the casino had kept requesting the same documents. The player had several payouts pending from various casinos including Silver Oak Casino. After the Complaints Team got involved, the casino confirmed that the payment had been made in full via Bitcoin on January 16th. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and the funds had reached her account. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Nevada had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawals could take a few days or weeks to process, and delays might be caused by unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had extended the response timer by 7 days, but the player failed to respond within the given time frame. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player's side.

The player from Kentucky had hit the playthrough requirement after receiving free spins and attempted to withdraw his winnings. He had deposited $12 to verify his wallet, but his account was subsequently zeroed out and his deposit was returned. He had been unable to contact customer service. We had asked the casino to clarify the situation. The casino had stated that the player had used several consecutive free chips without making a cash deposit in between, which was against their terms and conditions. As a result, we confirmed these facts and rejected the player's complaint.

The player from Illinois had reported not receiving his withdrawal after two weeks and unsuccessful attempts to reach support. We had reached out to the player for further information regarding his previous withdrawal history, KYC verification status, and whether his winnings were accumulated with an active bonus. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the extended 7-day period. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had faced issues with the Silver Oak Casino, where she had been waiting for three different withdrawals for 1.5 months. Despite having received emails stating that the withdrawals had been processed, she hadn't received the funds. The casino had claimed that the player had mixed funds, which was against their terms and conditions, making two of her withdrawal requests invalid. However, one withdrawal of $60 was deemed valid. The casino had requested the player to submit necessary documents for the withdrawal to be processed, which she had complied with. However, the casino had then requested additional information for KYC procedures. The player did not respond to this last request, resulting in the rejection of the complaint due to a lack of response. Despite further communication and attempts to resolve the issue, the player eventually gave up and requested the complaint to be closed.

The player from Connecticut is unable to access the casino's website, preventing login and money withdrawal. Disturbingly, the account shows a negative balance instead of the expected winnings which raises his concern. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Iowa had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. The player had faced issues with verification as he no longer possessed the cards the casino wanted for verification. Despite the Complaints Team's efforts to assist and extend the timer for response, the player did not respond to further inquiries. As a result, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from New Jersey has faced a delay with his withdrawal, requested over three weeks ago. Although he complied with max cash out regulations and KYC requirements, he hasn't received his payment. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from Alaska had requested a withdrawal after winning $842 with a bonus. The casino had denied the withdrawal request and informed the player it was due to an unconfirmed payout method. The player had reported the issue to us, and after our intervention, the casino had approved the withdrawal. However, the player had experienced difficulties accessing the casino's website and claimed not to have received the payment. Despite further communication with the casino, the player had only received $500, not the full $842 they were owed. The player had stopped responding to our inquiries, so we were unable to further investigate the discrepancy and had to close the complaint.

The player from Bosnia and Herzegovina was facing hurdles in verifying his account and withdrawing his winnings of 2000. The Complaints Team had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for specific details about the documents the player had submitted for verification. However, the player did not respond within the extended timeframe, which resulted in the complaint being rejected due to lack of necessary information for further investigation.

The player from the United States had cashed out $1,000 on the 3rd of October and had not received it despite promises from the casino that it had been verified and was on its way. It had been three weeks. After a lengthy investigation lasting nearly a year, it was confirmed that the player had indeed received the payment back in October 2023, but there had been confusion regarding the transaction. The Complaints Team had now concluded the case based on this finding and would proceed with rejecting the complaint.

The player from South Africa had difficulties withdrawing his winnings. The casino had given the player multiple chip bonuses, which the player claimed to have used in compliance with the casino's rules. However, the player was informed that the withdrawal would be rejected because of the use of multiple free chips. After reviewing the casino's terms and conditions, we found a clause that prohibited the redemption of multiple free bonuses consecutively. As such, we concluded that the casino had denied the player's winnings in accordance with their terms. Despite the player's concerns about the casino's practices, we were unable to assist further due to the terms of the casino.

The player from Louisiana had been attempting to withdraw his winnings but had been unsuccessful. Despite his efforts to contact the casino, he received no response. The player had won the money on October 3rd and was asked to deposit $12, which he did, but still could not withdraw his winnings. He also mentioned that he had won his earnings from an active bonus. The casino, however, provided evidence that the player had breached the bonus terms and conditions by claiming multiple free bonuses without making a deposit in between. As a result, the player's withdrawal request was denied in accordance with the casino's policy. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from the United States had experienced a payout issue with an online casino. After completing the verification process, he had expected an $800 withdrawal but received only $10. The player claimed to have met all wager requirements from a free bonus provided by the casino. However, we found that according to the casino's terms and conditions, the maximum withdrawal from a free bonus should have been $100, not $800. We had requested further details from the player to verify his claims, but the complaint was ultimately rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Florida has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. We contacted the casino, and it turned out the bank statements were missing to verify the player's payment method. The delay in communication between the player and the casino was also caused by the issues with email addresses, however, the casino representative finally informed us about reviewing the document. The player was asked to submit a new withdrawal request, and after some time they confirmed receiving the winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Colorado had deposited and played in the casino. After his win, the payment was initially approved but then disapproved by a manager, and he had received no communication or payouts for 3 months, despite sending multiple emails. Additionally, the player's transaction history had been removed from the site. The player confirmed this had been his first withdrawal attempt and he had passed the KYC verification. However, he admitted to creating another account after the first one was not paid out. Upon learning this, we had informed him that most online casinos, including this one, prohibit players from opening multiple accounts. Therefore, we could not support his case due to this breach of the casino's rules. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player did not respond to further communication.

The player from the United States is facing issues with withdrawal. After meeting the playthrough balance linked to a promotion, she requested a withdrawal for $1,307 via Bitcoin but her withdrawal could not be processed. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played down before we could intervene.

The player from Florida had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. After the player confirmed that the withdrawal was manager approved, we requested additional information to investigate further. However, despite extending the response deadline, the player didn't provide the requested information. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with the case and it had been rejected.

The player from the United States has been waiting for a payout for 9 days. He is unable to access his account because it was closed by him. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Arkansas is having trouble withdrawing $100 won through a no deposit bonus. The casino returned the money to the account after three weeks without informing the player why the withdrawal was not processed. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Oklahoma has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. When we contacted a casino representative, it turned out some documents were missing and the communication with the player was complicated due to some outdated contact details. Finally, the withdrawal via wire trasnfer was processed by the casino. There were still a little delays caused by the 3rd party payment provider issues, but the player confirmed receiving her funds in the end. We closed the complaint as resolved.

A player from California won a $500 jackpot. After reducing his balance to $200, it was further cut to $100 due to a no-deposit bonus limit. He made a withdrawal request in July 2023, which got canceled and denied multiple times. The player had multiple active accounts and multiple free chips and therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from the United States experienced technical issues while playing a bonus game at Silver Oak Casino. Despite refreshing, the problem persisted. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Ontario won using free chips, completed the playthrough, met withdrawal requirements, and verified their ID, but only received $8 out of $100 owed. Despite contacting the casino for the remaining $92, customer service only issued tickets and has not resolved the matter. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal, but it has not been processed probably due to incomplete verification. After we contacted the casino, its representative explained that the player used several free chips so the winnings couldn't be withdrawn. The player was paid out a maximum of $100 for no deposit bonus used back in March. We were forced to closed the complaint since the player wasn't eligible to getting the rest of the winnings according to the terms of no deposit bonuses at the casino.

The player from the US has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The player has claimed multiple consecutive free chips without a cash deposit so the withdrawal was denied. The complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from Nevada has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's bonus terms and conditions.

The player from Indiana has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States had her account blocked without further explanation. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's bonus terms and conditions.

The player from Mexico has requested a withdrawal almost one month prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, no-deposit bonus terms were breached and, therefore, the complaint has been rejected.

The player from Vietnam has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, the payment seems to be delayed. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Hungary is complaining about the lengthy verification process. We've received evidence that the casino T&C's have been breached, so we are unfortunately forced to reject this complaint as unjustified.

The player from New Zealand has been struggling to log in to his account. The casino explained they don't accept players from the player's country anymore. We’ve rejected this complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from the US was informed that the loyalty bonus was credited falsely and the casino decided to withhold the accumulated winnings. The issue was successfully resolved. The casino aknowledged the mistake and the player got paid.

The player from United States requested a withdrawal and after 14 days of waiting for the payment, he decided to submit a complaint. The player received the payment 1 month after the withdrawal request. The complaint is resolved.

The player from United States has requested withdrawals six weeks ago. Unfortunately, They haven't been received yet. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

A player (from a restricted country) by his words dealt with a casino that they would return their deposits. The first payout was paid without a problem but the next payout didn't arrive and casino never replied to the complaint nor to the player directly. The case remains unresolved.

The player, Kiretta70, requested a withdrawal but it kept being sent back to her player's account every time she requested it. She contacted the casino about this issue for about twenty-one times with no resolution. The casino claimed that she was paid her winning back in 2012 and didn't provide any further information about this case.

After the player hit the jackpot and accumulated some winning, he requested a withdrawal. The casino refused to pay him full amount and wanted to pay him only $100 because the jackpot came from a free chip money where winnings were limited to $100. The player disagreed and stated that before casino confirmed his winnings and now just tried to find a way how to not pay the big winning. The casino failed to provide some evidence about the case.

The player was offered a free chip, won, and tried to withdraw $1,500 (free chip is limited to $100 withdrawal). Only then the support team realized that the player came from a restricted country and they couldn't receive their winning. All bonus winnings were seized and the account was closed. This case remains unresolved.

The player from Australia has been waiting for his withdrawals since February. The casino managed to look into the issue and the withdrawals started coming to the player. The complaint was closed as 'resolved' since the withdrawals seem to be working to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Australia had been waiting to have her withdrawal processed for almost a month before submitting the complaint. The issue was resolved. Three weeks later, the player informed us she had received her funds.

The player won A$10,000 on May 22nd, 2019. All documents and withdrawals have been accepted and approved by the casino, but she only received A$2,480 and is still waiting for the rest. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal three weeks prior, with one approval for $2500 on 8/29. Despite being informed that it was marked as a priority and would take 3-7 days, there had been no update or response from the casino after multiple inquiries. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the final payment had been issued to a third-party payment provider for disbursal, and the player subsequently received all his winnings. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system after confirmation of receipt.

The player from Indiana had requested three withdrawals over the past three weeks, totaling $6,251. Despite providing all required documents for verification and having the payments approved, she was told that the withdrawals were pending final steps, with no clear explanation provided. We contacted the casino to clarify the status of the payments, and the casino confirmed that the last withdrawal was processed and pending transfer. After continued delays and communication, the player finally received her last payment, resolving the issue.

The player from Minnesota had requested a withdrawal which had been delayed for 2 weeks. Despite completing the requested verification process and having regular exchanges with the casino, the $700 payout via Bitcoin had yet to be processed. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, resulting in the casino approving and expediting the payment. The player later confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the issue.

The player from the US had experienced a delay in the processing of his bitcoin withdrawal of $335.21. The withdrawal request had been placed more than a month ago, but the online casino had not provided any definitive timeline or updates despite multiple inquiries from the player. After the complaint had been lodged, the casino responded stating that the withdrawal had been approved at $133 after deducting the provided bonus of $202. The player later confirmed receipt of two payments totaling $117.60, suspecting the difference from the approved amount was due to a processing fee. We had confirmed the possibility of a processing fee and marked the complaint as resolved after the player had received his funds.

The player from Ontario had been trying to withdraw his winnings, originally from a no-deposit bonus, since September 2023. Despite having followed all promotional rules and ensured the correct usage of the bonus, the casino kept delaying the payout, giving a waiting period of 2-10 business days each time. After the player's complaint, we asked the casino to provide an update on the status of the player’s withdrawal request. The casino representative had confirmed the player's Bitcoin address and escalated the withdrawal for payment. The player had then confirmed receipt of his funds, and we had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States had followed all the necessary steps to play through a bonus and cash out. However, her withdrawal of $120 had not been approved despite assurances from a casino representative. After the player raised a complaint, we had facilitated communication between her and the casino. The casino had requested additional documentation and confirmation of the player's Bitcoin address. The player had expressed concern about the safety of sharing her Bitcoin address and the history of her withdrawal requests being cancelled. We had assured her that her Bitcoin address would only be visible to us and the casino. Eventually, the player received her payment and expressed gratitude for our assistance. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal from the casino a month ago, but had not received the funds. The player had confirmed that he had met the sales requirements for a no deposit bonus and had deposited $10 in Bitcoin to verify the payment method. This had been his first time playing at this casino and he had not redeemed any bonuses before. The casino had responded that players from Germany were not allowed to cash out on free welcome chips but mentioned a recent Bitcoin transfer of $24. The situation had been reviewed by the casino's relevant department. The complaint had eventually been resolved successfully.

The player from Alaska has been waiting for his withdrawal for two weeks, and suspects the casino might refuse to pay. He is dealing with multiple withdrawals, and even though a couple are approved, he has not received any payment.

The player from Poland won $100 from a free chip but has been unable to contact the casino despite submitting all the required documents. The player confirmed the case was resolved, so we closed it accordingly.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal more than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Indiana had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. We contacted the casino and found out that 2 of 3 withdrawal requests were already processed, and the third one was about to be approved by the casino. After several days, the player confirmed receiving their winnings in full amount, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The player's account had been verified, and the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal more than three weeks ago. It has been pending since. Even if we’ve assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint. The player contacted us once more, stating that the issue was not resolved, therefore we reopened this complaint to give it one more chance. The player got payed and the case is resolved.

The player from California had won a jackpot of $720 at Royal Ace casino on August 20 and had requested a withdrawal, which had not been processed a month later despite being told it would take 7-10 business days. After contacting the Complaints Team, it was confirmed that the payment had been sent to a third-party provider, and the player was informed that the transaction was forthcoming. Ultimately, the player confirmed that the withdrawal had been successful, and the issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Alabama had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawal before submitting a complaint. After two weeks, the player confirmed that he had received his payout of $50, which was the maximum payout for the no deposit bonus he had used. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Texas has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States is having issues with login and withdrawal. After a deposit of $125, a software glitch prevented the player from accessing the game. Despite multiple password resets and emails to the support, the issue persists. Additionally, the casino has not processed a pending withdrawal of winnings worth $2500 despite numerous document submissions. The player later informed us that her winnings have been paid, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States faced issues with withdrawing money from the casino. Despite the rule stating a minimum cash out of $100 for monthly cash back, she received only $20, with the casino citing the use of Coindraw as the reason. The player questioned if different withdrawal methods had different rules and experienced delays in getting responses from customer service. The issue was resolved after the casino provided the remaining balance, allowing the player to put it back in withdrawal. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Puerto Rico had struggled to withdraw her winnings from the casino for several months, despite having provided necessary documents repeatedly. The casino had continuously denied the payout due to supposedly missing documents. The withdrawal had eventually been approved on April 12, but the funds were not sent until May 11. After the player confirmed the receipt of her funds, we had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States had tried to make a withdrawal but was informed about missing documentation. Even though he provided all the requested documents, the casino kept asking for more information. The player had won the money without an active bonus. After the Complaints Team intervened, the Casino's Representative had confirmed that the player's account and bank transfer details were correct and that the withdrawal of $300 had been approved. However, the amount had included a non-cashable deposit bonus of $142, leaving the player with $158 to withdraw. This had been escalated for express disbursal. The player later confirmed receipt of the payment, and the complaint had been resolved.

The player from Kansas had requested two separate withdrawals from Slots Garden, totalling $2400. The casino had initially refused to pay her through Bitcoin, her preferred method because she hadn't deposited with Bitcoin. The casino had requested her bank details for a wire transfer, but later stated they couldn't send the money to her bank. The player had been unwilling to change her bank or open a second account to receive her winnings. After the intervention by us, the casino released the first portion of the withdrawal via Bitcoin and expedited the remaining payment. The player had confirmed receipt of her winnings and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from California had had an issue accessing her Slots Garden casino account via Inclave after accumulating about $1,400 in winnings. She had been unable to get in touch with Slots Garden or Inclave and had suspected foul play due to sudden device problems. We had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions. However, the player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved.

The player from the United States had had issues withdrawing her $400 winnings from an online casino. Despite having submitted the required identification multiple times, her withdrawal had remained "in process" for over three weeks. The casino had clarified that the approved withdrawal amount was $130, accounting for a bonus and account confirmation deposit. Eventually, the player had received $116 of her winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player was facing issues with withdrawal. She had requested a payout of 880$ in Bitcoin, her payment method during the deposit. However, despite approval from the manager, the Bitcoin withdrawal was denied. It turned out it was a no-deposit bonus with a maximum cashout of $100 and a country restriction issue. Later, the complainant informed us that her issue was sorted out. The complaint is resolved.

The player from California has encountered problems with his withdrawal process despite verifying his account three times. He was promised a timeframe of 7 to 10 days which has extended, while communication with the casino remains the same. The issue of loyalty bonus limit was also raised. The complaint was resolved as the player's money got paid out.

The player from the United States had reported a delay in his withdrawal request since August 2nd. Despite having adhered to the casino's rules, his withdrawal request had remained unprocessed. He had confirmed that he was not a bonus abuser, as he had made numerous deposits and losses. The Complaints Team had asked for screenshots of his bonus and cashier histories for further investigation. Eventually, the player had confirmed that he received his payment from Slots Garden. We had closed the complaint as 'resolved', and had directed the player to open a separate complaint for another issue with Lucky Legends Casino.

The player from Virginia successfully beat the stipulated playthrough limit and requested a withdrawal. The casino requested a KYC process and a deposit of $10 in Bitcoin for address proof. While the player complied, their withdrawal request was later revoked due to casino's issues with CoinDraw. The player is unsettled about the additional waiting period stated by customer service and believes it's time for third-party intervention. We closed the complaint as resolved since the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the US requested four separate withdrawals using Bitcoin, but after two weeks, the requests were canceled and the money returned to their balance. Despite being assured that their issue would be resolved, the player hasn't received any specific support and the issue remains unresolved. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from South Africa had their withdrawals withheld and account blocked. The casino discontinued it's South African version, however they were able to process the withdrawal for the player and the complaint is resolved.

The player from South Africa was dissatisfied with the long withdrawal process and the casino’s support wasn’t helpful after inquiring about his withdrawal. The complaint was resolved. The player received his winnings nearly 3 months later, with unexpected fees deducted by one of the banks processing the payment.

William, a player from South Africa, won from a no deposit bonus and he is stuck on the verification process. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the casino’s support and services. This case was successfully resolved.

The player from the US faced withdrawal issues after winning a $300 no deposit bonus. Initially, his withdrawal request was delayed and extended beyond the promised timeframe, which led to his account being locked. He was unable to access the site and could not contact the casino regarding his $300 winnings. The issue was resolved after the casino confirmed that the player's withdrawal request had been approved, and the winnings were sent to his registered Bitcoin address. The player acknowledged receipt of the funds, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the US had reported multiple approved payouts via Bitcoin in one day. However, after she received one payment, she was notified that she couldn't use Bitcoin anymore and was required to opt for a wire transfer and submit additional documents. Despite her initial resistance to opening a new account for wire transfer, as she had been initially instructed to open a Bitcoin account, the issue was eventually resolved. The player confirmed that the matter had been taken care of, leading us to close the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Kansas had experienced issues with her withdrawal from Planet 7 Casino as the operator had refused payouts via BTC, wire transfer, and check. The only option proposed had been opening an account with two banks, both inconveniently located for the player. After the player had opened a bank account and informed the casino, she was told to wait for a month to get her winnings due to the absence of a bank statement. However, the casino then allowed her to withdraw her winnings via Bitcoin, which she had initially requested. The player had received her winnings and was waiting for a payout from the casino's sister company, Raging Bull Casino. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from California had reported that she had requested a withdrawal two weeks prior but had not received the payout despite it having been approved. She had claimed to have received various excuses from the casino and had been told to wait longer. The player's account had been verified, and she had fulfilled her wagering requirements. She had also reported having daily, unproductive conversations with the casino. After we invited the casino representative to the conversation, the casino confirmed that the payment had been processed. The player had confirmed receipt of her winnings, albeit with some confusion due to unfamiliar emails. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.