Dear Casino GURU Team,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding Scibet’s decision to confiscate €1,400 of my winnings, returning only €200, which corresponds to my initial deposit.
According to the casino’s communication, they claim I have committed multiple alleged violations of their terms and conditions. Among these, the one presented as the main violation is "Two tier betting (where large bets are placed on high variance outcomes, before switching to lower variance outcomes to clear wagering requirements)".
Regarding these accusations, I would like to state the following:
- Access to betting history and absence of prohibited patterns
While the casino refused to provide my betting history in a downloadable format, I can access it directly from my account on their website. After thoroughly reviewing it, I can confirm that there are no bets matching the definition of two tier betting or any other prohibited practices they suggest. My gameplay pattern has been consistent, without drastic changes that could be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate wagering requirements.
- Ambiguous rules and arbitrary interpretation
The main rule cited, as well as others vaguely mentioned, are written in ambiguous terms. This ambiguity allows for subjective application, placing the player in a position of disadvantage. Even when playing legitimately, the casino could claim a violation based solely on their own interpretation — which appears to be the case here.
- Lack of transparency and refusal to provide verifiable proof
Although the information is available on the platform, their refusal to supply it in a downloadable format limits my ability to present clear and complete evidence to impartial third parties.
Confiscating the entirety of my winnings without providing clear, objective, and verifiable evidence is both disproportionate and unfair. Even if a violation had occurred (which I strongly deny), the penalty applied does not reflect reasonable proportionality.
Based on the above, I respectfully request Casino GURU to reassess this case, taking into consideration the lack of solid evidence from the casino, the ambiguity of the rules applied, and the disproportionality of the action taken. It is my position that the €1,400 confiscated should be returned in full.
Sincerely,
Juan Fernando
Dear Casino GURU Team,
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding Scibet’s decision to confiscate €1,400 of my winnings, returning only €200, which corresponds to my initial deposit.
According to the casino’s communication, they claim I have committed multiple alleged violations of their terms and conditions. Among these, the one presented as the main violation is "Two tier betting (where large bets are placed on high variance outcomes, before switching to lower variance outcomes to clear wagering requirements)".
Regarding these accusations, I would like to state the following:
- Access to betting history and absence of prohibited patterns
While the casino refused to provide my betting history in a downloadable format, I can access it directly from my account on their website. After thoroughly reviewing it, I can confirm that there are no bets matching the definition of two tier betting or any other prohibited practices they suggest. My gameplay pattern has been consistent, without drastic changes that could be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate wagering requirements.
- Ambiguous rules and arbitrary interpretation
The main rule cited, as well as others vaguely mentioned, are written in ambiguous terms. This ambiguity allows for subjective application, placing the player in a position of disadvantage. Even when playing legitimately, the casino could claim a violation based solely on their own interpretation — which appears to be the case here.
- Lack of transparency and refusal to provide verifiable proof
Although the information is available on the platform, their refusal to supply it in a downloadable format limits my ability to present clear and complete evidence to impartial third parties.
Confiscating the entirety of my winnings without providing clear, objective, and verifiable evidence is both disproportionate and unfair. Even if a violation had occurred (which I strongly deny), the penalty applied does not reflect reasonable proportionality.
Based on the above, I respectfully request Casino GURU to reassess this case, taking into consideration the lack of solid evidence from the casino, the ambiguity of the rules applied, and the disproportionality of the action taken. It is my position that the €1,400 confiscated should be returned in full.
Sincerely,
Juan Fernando