Skycrown Casino - general discussion

If you want to discuss anything related to Skycrown Casino, such as its games, bonuses, payment methods, issues with your account, responsible gambling features, or anything else, you can do so here.

Why is Kristina no longer continuing with my complaint? It's been 9 days with no progress.

It's probably because your complaint was closed:

https://casino.guru/skycrown-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-blocked

Yes, I saw. Congratulations to Kristina !! After 10 days despite having provided all the evidence of the casino's criminal conduct in the face of my permanent self-exclusion request, he decided to close the complaint by supporting the casino's work. This means that you are on the side of those casinos that when a player wants to self-exclude they offer him a bonus to make them desist from their decision by going against their own T & Cs.

Kristina writes that I would have requested the bonus when I sent the request for self-exclusion when instead it was they who proposed it to me. Of course, he obscured all the screenshots of the emails that proved the facts I have described. You are a champion of respecting responsible gambling rules and then you are complicit in these casinos that do not respect them.

I followed the procedure outlined in their T & Cs under "Self Exclusion" while the casino did the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

I do not deny that I feel a total contempt for how you handle complaints especially when they concern casinos that sponsor you.

I asked for the complaint to be reopened with the following communication:

I would like to know why you rejected my complaint. I have sent you all the proof that it was the casino that offered me a bonus after my PERMANENT SELF-EXCLUSION request. I have also sent you proof that I have provided the casino with the reason for my self-exclusion request is that I did not want to lose any more money! I have provided you with the screenshot of their T&C on the self-exclusion which states that when the player requests it the casino must take all measures to close the account!

So in your opinion offering a bonus is taking all measures to close the account in the face of a clear and repeated request for self-exclusion?

Are you joking?

I ask that the complaint be reopened to obtain my legitimate refund otherwise I must think that your actions are in bad faith like the casino.

Hello carsix79,

I believe that the point is that we do not see any relevant reason for a refund. This is the reason for the final verdict, I believe.

Honestly, I will wait for the complaint to be handled again. If that happens, I can see the complaint only as closed at the moment.

I believe instead that the point is that you are at the mercy of the casinos and you have lost all credibility in the eyes of those who send you the complaints and you reject them with unfounded reasons. Just waste people time and you'd better say which casinos are untouchable to you because I see so many incredible crap complaints. That is, agreeing with a casino that offers bonuses rather than excluding the player who explicitly requests them is totally insane.

Every day there are people who commit suicide for gambling and this is your way of dealing with self-exclusion complaints! Not just my case, I've seen many others very similar. I hope karma will do its duty someday ..

Hello, carsix79,

Just to clear things out: We are not at mercy of any casino - we are independent.

On the other hand, I agree that it sounds truly irresponsible to me. If your VIP manager offers you a bonus while you have been dealing with the self-exclusion, I would not call it a proper reaction.

Anyway, I believe that if you start using the proper template for your future self-exclusion requests, there will be no questions about the matter. We already explained that the most important thing is how you ask for the permanent self-exclusion and what reason you state.

Listen to me well. I don't know if you have difficulty understanding or pretend not to read and view the emails I sent to the casino.

I followed their T&C on self-exclusion and sent an email requesting permanent self-exclusion (ie forever !!) from all their casinos. Then I sent another and another. Once they understood my request, they also asked me why and I explained it (I didn't want to lose any more money!). At that point, instead of following their T & Cs and banning me from their casinos for life, they saw fit to offer me a bonus to change my mind. Here it is they who are committing a violation of their T & Cs on self-exclusion and I am clearly a victim of that.

In the face of all this, it matters to you as a casino guru that the player must put "self-exclusion" on the subject of the email and specify "gambling problems" when this is not required in their T&C !! And anyway a player wants to self-exclude himself from a casino for life for what reason do you think? Did you invent this rule of having to specify such a request in detail, given that it is not written in the casino contract? You have focused on a formality that is not foreseen by this casino otherwise they would have written it in their terms and conditions. But what they have done for you is all right.

However, it is useless to continue discussing this. It is disconcerting to me how you deal with certain complaints regarding this aspect.

You have lost all credibility and raised many suspicions about your work.

Sadly, I agree - it's pointless to continue any further debate on this subject.

Just try to accept this:

1) the permanent self-exclusion request WITHOUT gambling issues mentioned as the reason CAN be revoked anytime and the casino tries to make the player stay by offering exclusivities.

2) the permanent self-exclusion request WITH gambling issues mentioned as the reason, CAN'T be revoked, the account is closed, no deals.

For further self-exclusion requests, please use the form provided via the complaint.

Again, maybe you have serious problems with understanding. In my case, the self-exclusion has not been activated as per my request, so revocability or non-revocability has nothing to do with it.

Regarding gambling problems when I was asked about the self-exclusion I wrote that I didn't want to lose any more money. And anyway in their T&C it is not written that you have to give a reason (which I gave anyway) so I followed their rules perfectly. If you find me the point where this thing is written please let me know otherwise you are talking about nothing.

I report the evidence while you do not!

I believe that the service that casino guru offers is great for us players and you often solve many cases thanks to the privileged contacts you have with casinos. In my case, however, I am very angry at how the complaint was handled because instead of focusing on the fact that the casino did not comply with my request for self-exclusion by offering me a bonus of its own initiative, you focused on formalities that are not matched. Self-exclusion in itself implies gambling problems and not wanting to lose any more money otherwise I would have simply asked for the account to be closed! It was enough to get in touch with the casino and the case would probably have been closed in my favor given the evidence. Instead none of this and this raises numerous doubts on my part.

Judging the cases when it comes to self-exclusion and problem gambling has always been problematic for us, since every case is a bit different. In order to draw some line that would allow us to be consistent during the complaint solving process, we had to set up some general rules.

You say that "self-exclusion in itself implies gambling problems". Some specialists for addictions would claim that basically every casino player has a gambling problem, thus all accounts should be closed and gambling banned according to them. We did a research regarding self-exclusion among players some time ago and we also realised that there are huge differences in how players understand the self-exclusion feature. Then we had to look at what's the business standard and responsible gambling procedures.

Generally speaking, when you want to self-exclude, it automatically doesn't mean you have a gambling problem. Some players want to self-exclude in order to protect their winnings. Just to make sure they don't cancel their pending withdrawal and lose the winnings. That's how some players use the self-exclusion feature.

When I look at it from the casino's point of view, I can understand what they did. They had a VIP player who wanted leave their casino. Not because he's a gambling addict, but simply because he doesn't like their casino, maybe lost a lot, feels like he didn't win anything. So the strategy is quite simple - let's try to give the player something for free so he doesn't leave.

I remember that when I worked in a casino, the instructions regarding responsible gambling were extremely simple. Whenever a player mentions "gambling addiction", "problems with gambling", "lost money and now he can't pay for the rent", "suicidal thoughts" etc., close the account for good and inform the player about it.

Whenever the player wants to close the account because he's not satisfied, take a look at the account. If it's a good player for us who really didn't get much bonuses and was simply unlucky with games, you can offer a bonus or ask a senior agent to add the bonus. Whenever it's a VIP player, contact the VIP manager immediately. That's it.

I would say that your idea of self-exclusion and how the casino handles it is quite disturbing. So in your opinion, a player who asks to be banned for life from a casino in order not to lose any more money is right to offer bonuses to keep him still with the possibility of making him lose money again in the future. Crazy! Well here everything is explained and honestly I remain speechless. I had no withdrawals or winnings to protect and had explained that I didn't want to lose any more money. I followed the instructions of their T & Cs that I have repeatedly given you while they completely violated them and offended me a bonus. Oh no right, the T & Cs should only be used in favor of the casino when it is the player who violates them! Instead they can do what they want ..

Thanks for the explanation now everything is clearer and more disturbing.

You told the casino that you don't want to lose more money. They reacted by offering you a bonus so you could play with money they borrowed you. Doesn't that make a sense?

I'm really sensitive to cases where a casino tries to exploit a player who feels bad and wants to stop gambling, because it's ruining his life. I didn't feel this was the case. I felt it's more like: "I lost money, didn't win anything, I'm angry, I don't like your casino so I want to leave and you won't see me here anymore."

They offered me a € 200 bonus with 10x rollover already knowing that 95% of the time I would not be able to complete it as it actually did. They didn't offer me any money to borrow but they offered me a way to entice me to play again and lose. Which casino in the world has a bonus policy to make you win and lose? Now you also make it seem like they did me a favor when instead their intent was to avoid my self-exclusion ... Incredible!

Look, you better let it go because I find what you write embarrassing.

You are true phenomena. In this case, praise the casino (sponsor?) For blocking the player's account without even asking for it. The player needed money and wanted to withdraw faster without asking for self-exclusion, the casino blocks his account and you applaud him because in the player's words (via chat !!!) you saw a high risk as if it were a request for self-exclusion.

Instead, I officially and explicitly ask for self-exclusion via email as per T&C and the casino instead of blocking me offers me a bonus and instead of condemning the casino you evaluate its work as legitimate and normal! As well as other cases of other players that you have treated in the same way.

And luckily you also write that gambling can cause serious damage !!!

The credibility and consistency you have is the same as the casinos you protect yourself.

Well done!!

I found the case you took screenshots from: https://casino.guru/bluvegas-casino-the-player-s-account-got-blocked

So the player played with a bonus thus the winnings were capped due to max. withdrawal limit rule - that's fine, it's a standard rule when it comes to bonuses. The casino paid out the winnings and blocked the player's account, because someone from their responsible gambling team saw this player as a problem gambler based on what the player said in a chat.

Personally, I wouldn't close player's account if he asked on live chat to 'be paid a little' as you 'need some money urgently'. For me, it means the player wants to get paid as fast as possible, which is nothing strange. If the casino saw this behaviour as a potential risk and decided to close the account after paying out the winnings, I'm fine with it. Casinos can close your account for any reason, but winnings must be paid first.