ExciteWin Casino Review

The player from Germany had won €28,000 and was having trouble with the withdrawal process. The player's attempts to withdraw smaller amounts had been cancelled and his communication attempts with live chat had not been successful. We had attempted to resolve the issue by asking for more information and extending the response time. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, leading us to close the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Finland had experienced a delay in payment from Excitewin. The casino's customer service team had reportedly been reviewing his request, but no resolution or payout had been given. Despite our efforts to understand the situation by asking questions and extending the response time, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had no choice but to reject this complaint.

The player from Germany had his account suddenly disabled by the casino after he attempted to cash out 800 Euros, a portion of his total winnings of 3,300 Euros. The disabling of his account was not accompanied by any explanation or notification. After the player had reported the issue, we had reached out to the casino for clarification. The casino had responded by stating that the account was undergoing a routine check. After three weeks, the player had informed us that his account was reactivated. We had subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The Italian player had claimed to have a gambling problem and had spent €2,157 on the casino since December. He had been seeking a refund due to financial distress and self-exclusion from all Italian gambling websites. He had provided evidence of his self-exclusion from several sites within the same casino group. However, the Complaints Team had clarified that each casino operated independently, and a self-exclusion request needed to be sent to each casino individually. The player had been dissatisfied with this explanation and had accused the Complaints Team of protecting the casinos. He later informed the team that he was in private negotiations with the casino for a refund. Despite extending the complaint's timeline, the player did not respond, leading the Complaints Team to reject the complaint due to lack of response.

The player from Finland had deposited €25 at an online casino, expecting to receive a welcome bonus. However, the casino's 'Administrative' team had denied him the bonus. When the player sought clarification, the customer service had ended the chat abruptly. The player had filed a complaint, but we had explained that casinos reserved the right to restrict bonuses and close player accounts without specific reasons. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Finland, after having wagered a large amount on the game 'Reactoonz', questioned the game's performance and return to player (RTP) percentage. The player's personal calculations had indicated the RTP was just above 70%, as opposed to the stated 96%; however, the casino insisted the game had been functioning properly. The player had provided evidence suggesting the RTP was set to a maximum of 91%, which the casino initially denied. After several exchanges, the casino confirmed that the game had been operating with an RTP of 91.2%. The player had requested compensation for the casino's initial misleading information about the RTP. The casino representative had provided evidence indicating that the incorrect RTP value was sent to the player only once, via email, after his account had been closed. The player had threatened legal action due to the casino's lack of response to his emails. The casino had sent the requested information to the player via email. The issue remained unresolved.

The player from Finland had experienced a delayed withdrawal from an online casino. Despite having provided all necessary documents and bank statements, the casino had not proceeded with the payment. The player had communicated with the casino multiple times but the issue had remained unresolved. We had intervened and requested the casino to provide a transaction reference number. After the casino had provided the reference number, we asked the player to verify the transaction with her bank. Following these steps, the player had finally received her withdrawal. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's service and decided not to play there again.

The player from Lower Saxony had struggled with Excite Win Casino. When he attempted to withdraw 500 euros of his winnings, the casino claimed he had violated terms and conditions by using a bonus without a deposit and canceled his withdrawal. The player confirmed that the funds had been re-credited back to his account, but he lost them while gambling. We had concluded the complaint as resolved since the casino had re-deposited the funds back to the player's account and the player had confirmed the same.

The player from Finland had an active self-exclusion in another casino due to a gambling problem. The player believes that they should have been banned from this casino too. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany is struggling to use his account correctly. After gathering all the necessary information, we decided to close this complaint as unjustified due to breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions - reasonable grounds to believe the player registered and used more than one account in the casino. In the given circumstances, it would be very hard or even impossible to prove that he did not play with other connected accounts. The casino acted in accordance with its Terms and Conditions.