Lemon Casino - general discussion (page 7)

OK. Let's be more exact considered to casino.guru review to this exact casino.

Everyone can see and read your methodology but how the rating is calculated according to your methodology it's a big big mystery.

Maybe you're right about something. Because I often clearly notice details that 98 out of 100 people don't pay attention to- my statements sometimes may seem unfounded. Maybe that's why it seems to me that your reviews are biased, but this may be due to banal miscalculations by your reviewers. Now more specifics

Let's review some points and some criterias, then me and some imbecile gamblers like me may understand your logic in your review

- Medium-sized casino, based on our research and estimates.

Agree. Even more, according to visitors quantity I checked it is near to be "large". BTW. According to my analysis, visitors quantity (or "casino size") is the basic in criteria in your reviews.

-We consider the casino's T&Cs to be 

fair...

I'm afraid your ideas about what is "fair" don't coincide with mine.

In some OTHER casinos reviews we may see this note: "Unfair terms and conditions

This casino forbids certain betting patterns or strategies when playing with bonus funds, but we have not witnessed this rule being used against players yet."

BTW I played in several casinos with similar warning message in casino.guru review, but Never have problem with that.

Now the facts:

In lemon.casino

"player gameplay will be assessed for any unusual playing patterns", and "If Lemon Casino determines irregular gameplay, the casino reserves the right to retain withdrawals and/or cancel all winnings" (claus 10 in T&Cs).

Even more, there is no clarification what considered as "unusual".

We do have a case. Even your complaint specialist rejected my complaint, but as I see he also was not sure regarding the interpretation of some points of the rules. Moreover, he refused to interpret the rules literally in favor of dubious and speculative and conjectural arguments of the casino. I will not write about the consideration of the case now - this is another topic, but the fact remains. There are articles in the casino rules that are clearly misleading, have a double meaning and give rise to different interpretations. This is unambiguous and categorical and if someone will argue the opposite, I apologize, but I will be sure that he have "special treatment" to casino. Considering that, the double meaning is not just comes from the texts in the T&Cs but also applied by this casino, of course, for its own benefit. This is a big, big issue. I would call one of the compelling reasons to add Many penalty points in the review.

And casino.guru consider it's rules "fair". Does anyone dare to doubt?))

No player complaints or very low value of withheld winnings in complaints in relation to the casino's size.

I see 17 complaints in 2024. You may know better if is this quantity is high or low.

-We also considered other factors, which had a neutral impact on the casino's Safety Index

Ok. I would add the low bet limit of 2EU when wagering the bonus together with absence of any software solution which can easily lead to losses by mistake even a gambler clearly remember the maximum bet rule. This casino with pleasure will confiscate your 10000Eu balance if you even one single time clicked 2.5 EUR by mistake. They do it regularly as I see in some user reviews (not only here). Is there anybody who doesn't think that this is extremely unsafe??

I remember, that in much smaller casinos how much time a big bet was Not allowed to be placed (the game just stopped) when by mistake I exceeded maximum - software didn't allow. I even have serious doubts that lemon.casino intentionally doesn't solve this at software level to have more chances to confiscate winnings. Don't I have any reasons to think so, really?

BTW in your review the maximum bet amount is mentioned 2,5Eu, which also speaks that reviewer didn't pay proper attention to details.

+ in many casino.guru reviews I can see warnings about low withdrawal limits. Pt.9 T&Cs of lemon.casino the maximum cash out limit is mentioned 2500... And there is not clarification is this one time, weekly, monthly or a lifetime limit). At least not clear...

Isn't this enough to doubt the validity of your review?

Oh. About license. I may be wrong, but I remember also in some of your reviews you mentioned "Passive regulator" as a penalty point. However this casino has the worst regulator in the worst field - Curaçao Interactive Licensing N.V. (CIL) 5536/JAZ. The worst even in Curaçao. CIL - even doesn't have any website, and some smart reviewers quite rightly equate presence of CIL license with the absence of a license at all... You don't have a chance for online solution with them because they are not online).. isn't it a reason at least to mention in review?

So some details. This casino has very high Safety Index in casino.guru..

I'm so glad we can focus on something concrete. Thank you for considering my request.

I honestly feared that we would eventually part ways for a brief moment. You see, maybe we have something in common because I also try to notice things that other people tend to ignore.

Well, to your points now. I'll focus only on those where a correctionor explanation should take place:

1) "-We consider the casino's T&Cs to be fair..."

We indeed consider irregular betting patterns used against the player an unfair practice, yet as stated in the Fair Gambling Codex 👈

"In some cases, betting patterns can theoretically be used to identify fraudulent behavior. We have nothing against this if betting patterns are used to uncover what can really be considered fraudulent, and not just used as an excuse not to pay out winnings to players."

"This being said, we still believe that forbidding betting patterns is unacceptable."

Thus, we do not consider this term in its written form to be completely unfair; we inspect how the casino uses the rules. I'd say someone with such a strong appeal for principles understands the difference between written form and everyday practice. Which leads me to:

2) "but the fact remains. There are articles in the casino rules that are clearly misleading, have a double meaning and give rise to different interpretations"

This is precisely why we individually focus on how the casino applies its terms. If the terms are unclear and the casino uses this as an unfair advantage or excuse to void winnings, we also consider all other aspects, like, for example, whether the player asks the support or chat for an explanation and what the response was like. Did the casino act in accordance with what they told the player or not? And so on.

3) "BTW in your review the maximum bet amount is mentioned 2,5Eu, which also speaks that reviewer didn't pay proper attention to details."

Well, it's not a review; it is a bonus detail provided by the casino. Would you be supriced if I told you we relied on casinos willingness to update their own bonus terms with us? We are.

Despite that, some bonuses only look like the standard casino bonuses, but have slightly different conditions.

4) "No player complaints or very low value of withheld winnings in complaints in relation to the casino's size.

I see 17 complaints in 2024. You may know better if is this quantity is high or low."

On the other hand, not a single unresolved complaint so far. You are partially correct; the wording is not precise, but the point is, as far as we know, not a single player was left complaining without resolving the matter.

So, in my opinion, this is not big deal.

5) "Oh. About license. I may be wrong, but I remember I some of your reviews you mentioned "Passive regulator" as a penalty point. However this casino has the worst regulator in the worst field - Curaçao Interactive Licensing N.V. (CIL) 5536/JAZ. The worst even in Curaçao. CIL - even doesn't have any website, and some smart reviewers quite rightly equate presence of CIL license with the absence of a license at all... You don't have a chance for online solution with them because they are not online).. isn't it a reason at least to mention in review?"

Reviews do not mention passive regulator as a penalty point. You are referring to a tab called "Safety Index explained," in which the latest complaints are shown, so the players reviewing the page don't have to leave the tab in order to see the latest complaints submitted against the casino.

As you probably overlooked, though the license icon shown in the review is hypertext-framed, leading you to the whole guide explaining the licensing authority "qualities.". I'd say this is more than just a mention somewhere:

https://casinoguru-en.com/licensing-authorities/curacao-license-2 👈

I would also like to point out there is a "penalization" for weaker licenses, and we also warn palyers about different qualities:

"Every online casino is operated officially from some country (or territory with a special statute - jurisdiction). To make it possible to operate an online casino from a specific country, this country has to have friendly legislation towards online gambling. Licences are issued either by the state that wants to regulate and tax the online gambling of its own citizens (UK, Belgium, Romania, etc.), or by jurisdictions that want to allow casinos to do international business (Malta, Curaçao, Gibraltar, etc.).

If a casino stubbornly refuses to pay you your legitimate winnings, the only possibility that remains is to turn to the regulator who issued the license to the casino. Only then will it show how important it was to choose a casino according to who issued their licence. A good regulator should always stand independently on the side of fair gambling. He should fairly assess and investigate every official complaint. In case of a serious violation of the rules by a casino, it may accede to revoke their licence.

In practice, with some regulators you won´t even be able to access a contact form in order to submit a complaint (Costa Rica, Panama, Anjouan, Seychelles). In this case, against the willfulness of a casino, you don't have any chance.

With some regulators you might have a chance of obtaining justice, however, their approach will generally be lax. Here we can include Curaçao and Gibraltar.

On the other side of the spectrum, stand respected licencing authorities like Malta, Alderney and Isle of Man. In case of a conflict with a casino licensed by some of these authorities, you have a pretty decent chance of obtaining justice." https://casinoguru-en.com/how-to-choose-an-online-casino 👈 point 3 - respected regulator.

If I have an opinion, I would say if you read all the guides and articles in each section - which would be something extra-extraordinary, you may find out the system is not that bad.

(I would appreciate it if you ignored my misspelling; the text is so long🙏)

Looking forward to addressing yet another set of points! In the meantime, have a good one!

Passive regulator- it's not the biggest issue. I didn't mean "penalization" for that. Even more, some casinos operate without any licenses and have great success. However you mention the fact of any casino operating without license. You mentioned CIL as a licensee of lemon.casino- what does it give to a noob in gambling? This exact license is almost similar to it's absence- this is the fact.

"This is precisely why we individually focus on how the casino applies its terms. If the terms are unclear and the casino uses this as an unfair advantage or excuse to void winnings.. "

Ok. I was telling about the same. But seems casino.guru staff have not intentions to see obvious facts just in front of them, but try to act like casino's advocate. What do you think about this yourself? There was a case... sorry there were casES concerning maximum bet. There are clearly written rules in their T&Cs that if bets are exceeded allowed amount they should not be taken into account ("Higher than admissible rates (before full turnover), will not be taken into account." Or "Bets exceeding this limit until the bonus is fully wagered will not be accepted"), but instead they confiscate all the funds. Even if your staff hasn't wishes or abilities to examine the case according literal meaning of T&Cs, add reject it, only the fact that some terms if T&Cs or their different interpretations lead a gambler to open a case, that means that it's no everything so fine with it's T&Cs.

"On the other hand, not a single unresolved complaint so far."

Not funny. I didn't want to return my case but you make me to do.

All I see as an act of called "case reviewing" was another clear manifestation of stereotypical thinking or protectionism, which is what I initially predicted in this thread.

If we look other cases we see couple more concerning "overbets" in this "very safe" casino. Another case - I also didn't like how did they treated to the guy from Canada who just had a mistake filling in registration data. Ok, formally casino was right, but casino's behavior was just disgusting. They may easily check if is this user a real or using fake docs. I had couple times a little mistakes filling in registration data in much more "unsafe" casinos according your indexes but their support corrected it without making problems... These are the cases you call resolved. You may reject the complaints - yes, and find you are right, but at the same time you may draw conclusions about casino behavior and "safety" and take in account in reviews.

My recent posts were about what exact useful gives your given rating to people. You have a casino that should be rated maximum 3-4 points out of 10 (IMHO), but it's rated 9,5. That definitely misleads. I take into account many factors: including their T&Cs and their behavior and their acts. But your staff is guided by other criterias unknown to me.

Even the fact that overbetting is possible in software level and the fact that they confiscate winnings because of - it is enough to conclude that this casino could not have even near to high Safety Index. And the another fact that they do it ignoring their own T&Cs (Branislav may not totally agree to this, but all the same he should agree that it's not everything simple and clear)- that's definitely "trash rating" - no more.

Nope , it was not approved . i decided to let it go. In other hand i still not happy with the outcome but they do whatever the want to not pay players. only because of a last name was "wrong" simply avoid that casino and every-time you register use your full name not your nickname to avoid opportunist like lemon casino.

What was the reason of rejection? As a player who is not satisfied with the quality of service you have rights to express your opinion even if someone considers it subjective. The only reviews that aren't acceptable, in my opinion, fakes, paids and obviously stupid ones.

Honestly, I was so upset with the reason that simply decided to delete the email and moved on. The review was posted here in the forum and luckily was not removed as well.

Anyway there is also a copy of my review in TrustedPilot and SiteJabber

Red Flag!

Look what i have found!

Oh, I truly can't say whether you even read my response.

Well, let's give it another try:

1) "Passive regulator- it's not the biggest issue. I didn't mean "penalization" for that. Even more, some casinos operate without any licenses and have great success. However you mention the fact of any casino operating without license. You mentioned CIL as a licensee of lemon.casino- what does it give to a noob in gambling? This exact license is almost similar to it's absence- this is the fact."

Have you read this, please?

I would also like to point out there is a "penalization" for weaker licenses, and we also warn palyers about different qualities:

"Every online casino is operated officially from some country (or territory with a special statute - jurisdiction). To make it possible to operate an online casino from a specific country, this country has to have friendly legislation towards online gambling. Licences are issued either by the state that wants to regulate and tax the online gambling of its own citizens (UK, Belgium, Romania, etc.), or by jurisdictions that want to allow casinos to do international business (Malta, Curaçao, Gibraltar, etc.).

If a casino stubbornly refuses to pay you your legitimate winnings, the only possibility that remains is to turn to the regulator who issued the license to the casino. Only then will it show how important it was to choose a casino according to who issued their licence. A good regulator should always stand independently on the side of fair gambling. He should fairly assess and investigate every official complaint. In case of a serious violation of the rules by a casino, it may accede to revoke their licence.

In practice, with some regulators you won´t even be able to access a contact form in order to submit a complaint (Costa Rica, Panama, Anjouan, Seychelles). In this case, against the willfulness of a casino, you don't have any chance.

With some regulators you might have a chance of obtaining justice, however, their approach will generally be lax. Here we can include Curaçao and Gibraltar.

On the other side of the spectrum, stand respected licencing authorities like Malta, Alderney and Isle of Man. In case of a conflict with a casino licensed by some of these authorities, you have a pretty decent chance of obtaining justice." https://casinoguru-en.com/how-to-choose-an-online-casino 👈 point 3 - respected regulator.

The player will therefore be taken to an immersive source of information about the concrete licensing authority if he is willing to click twice or four times. Like you said, even as a "noob"

2) "This is precisely why we individually focus on how the casino applies its terms. If the terms are unclear and the casino uses this as an unfair advantage or excuse to void winnings.. "

Ok. I was telling about the same. But seems casino.guru staff have not intentions to see obvious facts just in front of them, but try to act like casino's advocate. What do you think about this yourself? There was a case... sorry there were casES concerning maximum bet. There are clearly written rules in their T&Cs that if bets are exceeded allowed amount they should not be taken into account ("Higher than admissible rates (before full turnover), will not be taken into account." Or "Bets exceeding this limit until the bonus is fully wagered will not be accepted"), but instead they confiscate all the funds. Even if your staff hasn't wishes or abilities to examine the case according literal meaning of T&Cs, add reject it, only the fact that some terms if T&Cs or their different interpretations lead a gambler to open a case, that means that it's no everything so fine with it's T&Cs.

"On the other hand, not a single unresolved complaint so far."

Not funny. I didn't want to return my case but you make me to do.

All I see as an act of called "case reviewing" was another clear manifestation of stereotypical thinking or protectionism, which is what I initially predicted in this thread."

The explanation is given in every complaint - If you have a concrete compliant in mind, please send a link. I don't have time to search the whole list and ask what you are most likely talking about. Be concrete, please.

3) "If we look other cases we see couple more concerning "overbets" in this "very safe" casino. Another case - I also didn't like how did they treated to the guy from Canada who just had a mistake filling in registration data. Ok, formally casino was right, but casino's behavior was just disgusting. They may easily check if is this user a real or using fake docs. I had couple times a little mistakes filling in registration data in much more "unsafe" casinos according your indexes but their support corrected it without making problems... These are the cases you call resolved. You may reject the complaints - yes, and find you are right, but at the same time you may draw conclusions about casino behavior and "safety" and take in account in reviews."

Same situation, I'm afraid - send the link. Just mind, I'm an admin, so I have no access to internal files regarding complaints and have no time to investigate each case. I hope that much is obvious.

4) "My recent posts were about what exact useful gives your given rating to people. You have a casino that should be rated maximum 3-4 points out of 10 (IMHO), but it's rated 9,5. That definitely misleads. I take into account many factors: including their T&Cs and their behavior and their acts. But your staff is guided by other criterias unknown to me."

The response is quite the same. Please read my previous post again. Someone like you should understand that your precise value of "3-4 points out of 10" says technically nothing if you fail to specify the formula too. As long as you say our formula is unknown to you, I bet you understand I have to say the same back to you. This is truly pointless.

5) "Even the fact that overbetting is possible in software level and the fact that they confiscate winnings because of - it is enough to conclude that this casino could not have even near to high Safety Index. And the another fact that they do it ignoring their own T&Cs (Branislav may not totally agree to this, but all the same he should agree that it's not everything simple and clear)- that's definitely "trash rating" - no more."

As explained in my previous posts and in complaints.

A note: Players just need to abide by the very basic maximum bet rule. If they don't, our mediators look into what happened and evaluate whether the casino's choice was fair.

We have probably reached a point where we are only talking about complaints about max bet violations.

Hello there.

I would like to apologize for my quickthinking here, as I mistakenly removed the links from your posts that were relevant to the whole matter here in the thread.

Please feel free to post your reviews on those sites again, even as screenshots if you wish, so others can read them as well.

Thank you for your understanding.

If I may, you expect us to be pleased with rejecting player reviews. This is very far from truth.

An email explaining the decision was sent to you. As long as the user review is based on the issue related to your rejected complaint, we feel it is not fair to accept it. 

If you give it a second thought, you may submit a new review that would describe your experience and your opinions only. 

Specifically, you used an incorrect name while registering in the casino; it was your mistake, yet we would still value your experience with the casino if you would not put the blame on the casino staff. Do you know what I mean? Secondly, the part explaining the license is actually about the license quality, not about the casino. 

Try to take better care of how you compose the review I bet you would be able to pass the review process.

Thank you for your reply, but I must respectfully clarify a few critical points regarding my situation and how disputes like mine are being handled.

Firstly, it is deeply concerning that Lemon Casino chose to block my emails, effectively cutting off communication and denying me any opportunity to defend myself against their unilateral decision. Legally, individuals have the right to a fair process, and this includes responding to and disputing claims made against them. By closing the dispute without proper discussion, they have disregarded this principle entirely.

To provide context, I am currently undergoing a legal name change and have official documents to verify this process. All other casinos I have interacted with—even those with identical terms and conditions—have resolved similar issues after discussions with customer service, allowing funds to be withdrawn once clarifications were made. In contrast, Lemon Casino’s approach was simply, "Sorry, but we are not going to pay you. Your mistake. Tadaaa." This kind of response feels dismissive and opportunistic.

Additionally, through my research, I noticed a significant number of negative reviews about Lemon Casino, which seems to suggest that this is not an isolated incident. My reference to their licensing in the review was based on this research and remains relevant to the broader issue of accountability. A license exists to protect players and ensure fair practices. When the consistent application of terms appears to deny basic rights, it raises serious concerns.

I must reiterate that my point is directed toward Lemon Casino, not CasinoGuru. Ultimately, this situation depends on an act of faith and goodwill between CasinoGuru and Lemon Casino to reach a fair agreement, as there is no legal platform to formally discuss this matter in court. If this were a court case, I am confident that a different outcome would have been reached.

I will take your suggestion into account and reconsider posting my review with a more focused approach. Cheers.

There you go:

TrustedPilot and SiteJabber

Hello, and thank you for your point of view!

Can you see what I was talking about now? If you, for instance, explained that much in the user review, it would be very likely approved. Thus, as I said, "Try to take better care of how you compose the review; I bet you would be able to pass the review process."

Especially the part about the name change. Such experiences are very rare to come across. The way I see it though, it's more of a legal matter, which frankly may exclude that from our reach. Not certain about that, to be honest.

As long as I have no idea what has happened between you and the casino, I think it is not wise to comment on that, and I'll stick with accepting your opinion, of course.

For example, I think that if a player plans to change their name while playing at an online casino, he should notify the casino beforehand, and both parties should look for the simplest way to have the new name validated.

As I and the others have explained, I also think that we simply cannot use an unverifiable source of information as justification for reducing the casino's Safety Index. For instance, TP reviews or other affiliate site researchers are not very valid sources for Casino Guru. In my opinion, the reason is no mystery; as long as players have a chance to consult their disputes with Casino Guru, we prefer to depend on those direct, proven facts.

Not a single complaint has been left unresolved thus far. If you can get in touch with other players you talked about, send them our way. Their recent negative experiences may be looked into and a suitable resolution determined through the complaint procedure. Hopefully, it is sufficiently evident that no website founded on rigorous procedures and exact computations can accept forum posts or reviews from other sources as verified facts based and agree with the idea that the casino needs to be "punished." I am not claiming that the casino has never erred or made a poor choice, but nobody has directly demonstrated that to us as of yet. Almost every time someone complains here, even in this thread, it sounds like the casino is bad also because others think that too. That's ok, and we have no problem with such opinions on the forum; these are just not enough to lower the Casino Safety Index.

Thank you for your detailed response and for sharing your perspective. While I appreciate the points you’ve raised, I must respectfully agree to disagree on certain aspects. My experiences with Lemon Casino and their handling of my case have led me to my conclusions, which I stand by.

I understand your stance regarding verifiable information and the Casino Safety Index, and I respect the procedures Casino Guru follows. However, my main concern was to highlight practices I found unfair and to seek resolution, which unfortunately remains unresolved in this instance.

I believe we’ve reached a point where we must agree to hold our differing views. Thank you again for your time and for engaging in this discussion.

Best regards

Hello! It's pleasing to see you keep checking on us.

How have you been?

Sure, that's ok. I'm just sad to see we could not help much due to the occurencies I mentioned. I also believe that each single rejected user review should be clearly addressed by someone from our team, especially when the player feels concerned about the reason for rejection.

Well, I hope your other endeavors will be much more comfortable!

Hello Radka

How are you?

SMaster

"Due to violating the rules of our community, you are not allowed to add comments in our forum"..

Sad, you didn't have wishes to continue conversation. 

Considering your forum's attitude to the word "Rules", I won't even ask which rules I violated. The fact that your open and transparent forum decided that raising questions about obvious gaps is taboo, is distutbing, but I certainly won't impose myself.. just one message:

 It would be very useful to involve to your 101 specialists team a lawyer with at least low qualifications, who has had to interpret the terms of simple contracts at least a couple of times.

This would help to properly handle cases where things are not so clear-cut.

Oh

"A note: Players just need to abide by the very basic maximum bet rule. If they don't, our mediators look into what happened and evaluate whether the casino's choice was fair.

We have probably reached a point where we are only talking about complaints about max bet violations."

yes, exactly. that's how it started, i didn't even think about submiting a complaint, as i was skeptical about considering cases if a player has committed a violation. I shouldn't have followed your advice and wasted my time, which only confirmed my reasonable doubts. But i would be happy to get an answer "very basic maximum bet rule" - which one exactly is "very basic maximum bet rule"? Which is written in the "sacred book of mediators"..? maybe in the "pirate code book"? or in lemon.casino T&Cs?))

Hello,

I appreciate you assisting me in locating another of your accounts, both of which have already been banned. I think I was pretty clear about how we operate here during our lengthy post-exchange. Additionally, I am ill-equipped to handle your tiresome, repetitive demands or requests. I fear you will never comprehend what it truly means to violate community guidelines if you do not intend to file any other free complaint and are unwilling to acknowledge that you cannot accuse casinos of being unjust without being able to substantiate your claims through the complaint process. This is just part of the issue anyway.

As I explained many times, we do not consider the terms as lawyers. The main point is how clerically the terms are stated and how both the casino and the palyers approach these.

Obviously, lawyers may disagree with the interpretation because law is generally more focused on actual writing form than the context or business standards.

In any event, because you are acting in the same manner, your original Casino Guru account will also be banned once the active complaint - which was most likely an error given your repeated claims that filing complaints here makes no sense to you - is closed.