Bodog Casino ASIA Review

The player from Brazil had their second withdrawal request rejected by the casino, and the account had been subsequently blocked. The player had denied breaking any rules and had believed the casino was acting in bad faith by blocking winners. The player, who had been successful with a withdrawal previously, had attempted to withdraw R$800 in winnings from playing Crazy Time and the PG Bandito slot. The casino had accused the player of having multiple accounts, which the player had vehemently denied. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino had not responded to the complaint, leading us to close the case as 'unresolved'. The player had been advised on how to submit a complaint to Curaçao eGaming, the casino's licensing authority.

The player from Brazil had his account blocked after he requested a withdrawal. Even though he had a verified account and regularly made deposits via PIX, the casino cited data related to other registrations, which the player was unaware of, as the reason for the closure. The player admitted that others might have played using the same IP address, but he assured that all deposits had been made from his bank account. Despite our attempts to contact the casino for clarification, there was no response. We marked the complaint as 'unresolved' and advised the player to contact the Curaçao eGaming Authority for further assistance.

The player from Venezuela, who had been a VIP with successful withdrawals, had his account canceled due to allegations of his account information being linked to other accounts. His funds had been retained by the casino, and his attempts to reach customer support had remained unresolved. The player had denied any possibility of others in his household creating accounts with the casino. Despite our team's efforts to engage with the casino for clarification, the casino had failed to respond. As a result, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could have negatively impacted the casino's rating. We advised the player to contact the Curaçao eGaming Authority for further assistance.

The player from Bolivia had won 15000 USD after making a 500 USD deposit. The casino alleged that the player had violated their maximum bet rule, which the player disputed. Despite attempts to resolve the issue since September 12th, no progress had been made. The Complaints Team had checked the casino's terms and conditions, confirming the existence of a 'maximum bet rule'. The team had requested additional information from the player, including game history and any relevant communication with the casino. However, the player did not respond within the extended 7-day period, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Argentina experienced account deactivation after a request for identity verification while attempting a withdrawal. The casino has not provided any reason for the deactivation. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil had his account limited to a 9 reais bet limit after reaching a total of 5,923 reais. When he tried to withdraw his funds, his account was deactivated and the withdrawal was declined despite the player providing necessary documents. We rejected this complaint as it was sports betting related.