Bet1000 Casino Review

The player from Russia had struggled with a withdrawal from the casino. Despite having sent the required verification pictures three times, the casino had requested a fourth submission. The player had requested a withdrawal on November 3rd and had his documents confirmed multiple times, but the casino had still been unable to process the withdrawal. However, the issue had eventually been resolved and the player had confirmed receipt of his winnings. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Norway had been unable to withdraw his winnings due to a dispute with the casino over the acceptability of his passport picture. Despite the passport picture having been marked as accepted on the player's end, the casino had still been in disagreement. This issue had been ongoing since October 23rd. However, the issue had been resolved successfully when the casino finally paid out the player's winnings. We had subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Bulgaria had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received by that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player that it was normal for withdrawals to take a few days or even weeks to process and suggested waiting at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The player later informed the team that his issue had been resolved. Consequently, the Complaints Team closed the complaint.

A player from Russia completed all necessary verifications but his withdrawal request keeps getting rejected due to an alleged duplicate account. The player suspects the confusion may be due to an IP overlap from using a VPN. The casino has not provided evidence of the alleged duplicate account. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Norway has been struggling with a withdrawal process from Bet1000, which has been pending for 10 days. The casino is verifying the large win with the providers, despite the player having already provided all required documents and having their KYC approved. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Russia had reported repeated payment rejections and accusations of operating a duplicate account. He had clarified that he used a VPN to access the casino, which may have caused IP conflicts. After additional verification, the casino had allowed him to continue using his account. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved, and he was able to withdraw his funds. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Bulgaria had verified her account, deposited, and won 1,500 BGN. However, her withdrawal request had been denied because the casino claimed there was another account linked to her IP address. The player had disputed this claim and sought our assistance. We had intervened and contacted the casino for clarification. The casino had stated that the issue was due to incomplete KYC verification, not a duplicate account. The player had provided the requested documents but one of them, a proof of address, was outdated. After the resubmission of a valid document, the casino had approved the withdrawal. However, due to technical issues, the payment had been delayed. Eventually, the player had received her winnings. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Bulgaria had managed successful deposits and withdrawals until recently. The most recent withdrawal of 320 euros was refused on the grounds of a duplicate account, a claim the player strongly denied. He and his wife had been sharing the same casino account, which was against the casino's policy. The player argued that the issue was about duplicate accounts, not who was playing. We concluded that the player's complaint was unjustified due to a breach of the casino's one-player-per-account policy. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India requested a withdrawal but the casino canceled it, citing the need for verification. Upon submission of the necessary documents, the casino claims the player has a duplicate account, although the player insists it's their first account. We contacted the casino and received multiple evidence confirming the casino's suspisions about multiple accounts are justified. We were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland reported that the casino had declined his verified utility bill and valid government-issued photo ID. He had successfully used the same documents at a sister site. The casino refused to refund his Bitcoin deposit totaling €123. The player confirmed that his balance was zero, indicating that he had used all his funds. We explained that since he had played his winnings, there wasn't much we could do. The complaint was eventually rejected as there were no funds to withdraw.

The player from Russia, after successfully completing the verification process, attempted to withdraw 200 euros. However, despite the casino's policy stating withdrawals should take up to 48 hours, it had been longer and the payment hadn't been processed. The player accused the casino of violating its own rules. The casino responded stating the withdrawal had been completed and the delay was due to an additional document required for verification. We asked the player to confirm the receipt of his winnings but received no response. We were therefore forced to reject the complaint due to lack of confirmation from the player.

The player from Greece is experiencing issues withdrawing his earnings from Bet1000 due to continuous requirements for further verification. Despite having met previous verification requirements, and being previously informed he was verified, he now faces additional, unspecified verification. The response from the casino is inconsistent and slow. The complaint was resolved as the player received his money.

The player from India has issues with withdrawal after depositing more money post initial account verification. Despite further verification and positive confirmation, his withdrawal was rejected due to supposed duplicate accounts. Despite suspecting the player of having multiple accounts, the casino processed the withdrawal, and the player confirmed receipt. As a result, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Bulgaria was facing difficulties in verifying his account and making a withdrawal from an online casino. Despite having submitted all the required documents, the casino rejected them and provided uninformative responses. The casino claimed that the player had a duplicate account, which was against their terms and conditions. The player argued that his first account was not verified and had been disabled upon his request after he made his first deposit. We asked the casino to provide records of the player's request for self-exclusion or account closure. The casino confirmed that the player had not requested self-exclusion, but had asked for his account to be closed. They also claimed that the player had opened a new account with different credentials. Despite our efforts to mediate, the player did not respond to our final inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Ukraine is unable to withdraw his winnings via the same method used for deposit (VISA, MASTERCARD). In attempt to withdraw via crypto, he learned a first deposit via crypto is necessary.

The player from Bulgaria has been facing issues with their withdrawal via bank transfer. They completed their verification process but all their withdrawal attempts were returned back to his casino account. The player confirmed the withdrawal was successful.

The player from Russia 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 Bulgaria deposited money and won using a bonus. But the casino refuses to payout, claiming the player possesses a duplicate profile despite successful verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Russia was facing difficulties with a withdrawal due to an address mismatch between her passport and her Sberbank statement. After providing a new extract from Alfa Bank where the addresses matched, the casino support changed her address of residence without her consent. Verification and payment have been pending since 07/13/2023 and the casino hasn't been responsive. After we contacted the casino, its representative informed us that the issue with the address was resolved and the withdrawal request was finally processed. The player confirmed it, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Bulgaria is attempting to withdraw 4400 BGN in winnings but is facing difficulty despite having a verified profile and previous withdrawals in the past. The casino requests additional ID photos and claims the player's profile is linked to other profiles. We rejected the complaint because the player played their balance down to zero.

The player from Sweden requested to self-exclude himself from the casino due to a gambling problem, but the casino instead offered the player a bonus. The issue has been resolved, and the player has received the refund. The complaint was closed as "resolved".

The player's self exclusion failed as the casino ignored his request. Later, the casino team reopened player's account, refunded the amount, so he can withdraw. Unfortunately, the player could play and lost it. We believed such accounts should not be reopened with availability to play, or the casino should find another way how to do the refund since opening account of addicted player is not fully compliant with Responsible Gambling. We were forced to close the case as 'unresolved'.