Spinbara Casino - general discussion (page 33)

I am currently collecting information and evidence from people who have experienced problems with Spinbara Casino.

I would be grateful if people who have experienced any of the following situations would contact me privately:

• withdrawals that were delayed or not processed within a reasonable timeframe, requiring repeated contact with the casino to recover the funds owed;

• delays in closing your account or applying self-exclusion despite a clear request to have your account blocked due to gambling addiction;

• continued access to deposits and gaming opportunities after informing Spinbary of a gambling problem and requesting closure of the account or self-exclusion;

• other issues relating to responsible gaming procedures, account closure, withdrawals or how player complaints and claims are handled.

If you contact me, please provide any documentation you have, including screenshots, emails, chat records, payout history, or other evidence that may help establish an accurate timeline of events.

I am currently preparing reports and complaints to the appropriate authorities and regulatory bodies regarding the identified issues. I intend to request a thorough investigation of Spinbara's practices and explore all available legal and regulatory options, including the possibility of further action against this website.

I am also preparing a comprehensive piece documenting my own experiences and analyzing the broader practices used by the Spinbara platform.

If you've experienced similar issues, please contact me privately. Any information or evidence can be helpful in determining whether these are isolated incidents or part of a broader pattern of behavior.

Please only contact people with real experience and verifiable information.

My e mail to this send complains:

dominosdom@icloud.com

I don't understand why my complaint was rejected on the grounds that my account was blocked within a reasonable time.

I explicitly requested that my account be suspended due to my gambling addiction, and I did so three times. Despite this, my account remained active.

Only after filing a complaint for a refund of the funds lost after my initial self-exclusion request did I receive notification of my account being blocked three days later. Moreover, the notification of the block was in direct response to my complaint.

Therefore, I don't understand how you can claim that my account was suspended within a reasonable timeframe. If I hadn't filed a refund claim, I have no reason to believe my account would have been suspended at all.

I request that you review my complaint and explain why my repeated requests to self-exclude were not granted at the time I submitted them.

Hello, I would say the complaint explains that. Did you read that, please?

"The player’s complaints about the failure to implement responsible gambling measures were not substantively addressed. We reviewed the available evidence and found that the casino restricted the account on 21 June 2026, which was deemed a reasonable timeframe after the initial request on 18 June 2026. As a result, the complaint was rejected as unjustified, and no refund of the winnings lost during the processing period was granted."

"According to the available evidence, you first informed the casino about your gambling problem and requested that your account be blocked on 18 June 2026. The casino confirmed the closure of your account on 21 June 2026. Please note that, in most casinos, self-exclusion requests are handled manually by the responsible departments. This process requires some time to ensure requests are handled appropriately and with the necessary attention.

From our perspective, Spinbara Casino restricted your account access within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, the casino cannot be held responsible for the deposits you made during the request-processing period.

As a result, you are unfortunately not eligible for a refund of these deposits. Regrettably, I have no choice but to reject your complaint as unjustified. Thank you for your understanding. I am genuinely sorry that we were not able to assist you more effectively in this particular situation, as we always aim to help players resolve their issues whenever possible."

It's important to remember that the request is just the beginning and is closely linked to the casino's responses and actions, which also require some time. It's not the same mechanism as for example, the panic button with a temporary, yet immediate, effect. As a result, we honor a 72-hour time frame for casinos to close the account.

So why does mga inform otherwise?

The MGA indicates that a request for self-exclusion due to a gambling problem should be implemented immediately ("forthwith"). In its latest review of self-exclusion practices, the MGA clarified that:

* self-exclusion is to be activated without delay, with immediate effect;

* maximum 24 hours from receipt of the request;

* if the request was sent via e-mail or chat, the operator should treat it as a priority;

* the operator cannot use identity verification or internal procedures as a reason to delay blocks

So why do you think Spinbara has 72 hours to block my account? Why doesn't Spinbara inform users or temporarily block deposits to avoid further losses related to gambling problems? Spinbara has problems with withdrawals and account blocking related to gambling addiction. I'm not the first person to report this on your forum. Why does Spinbara have such a high security score on your scale?

In my opinion this demonstrates the difference between the rather unclearly specified term "immediate," which also, however, indicates the time period after the casino support received or, in reality, read the request, not the moment the request was sent by the player and the practical application based on each casino platform.

To say that in a more direct manner, those are "just" words, not the actual everyday system possibilities of the casino. If you know what I mean. The casino is not 24 hours overseen by MGA, which somehow starts counting the seconds starting from one specific request made by a certain player, if you know what I mean.

Some casinos can act within 24 hours, while others can not. It always depends on their possibilities and limitations; that's the difference between something written and the reality of a real world.

Each casino should act as soon as they can. For us, it's closure within 72 hours because we are not MGA and have different practical experience with operators.

I know it's difficult to accept, and you are welcome to consult your casino experience with MGA. We apply different benchmarks, I'm afraid.

I understand your website, but I completely disagree with it. Since the casino knows that such cases take longer than 24 hours to process, they should clearly disclose this when requesting a ban due to gambling addiction. I understand your website, but I disagree with this and your assessment of the level of security. I will continue to try using other methods to recover my money. I encourage anyone who has experienced a similar situation or other problems with this casino to contact me.

I understand you disagree, and I respect that. Thank you for your efforts, patience and understanding.

Interesting to read different experiences here. I think every casino can look good when things go well, but the real test is usually when players request withdrawals or need support. Transparency and communication make a big difference.

In my opinion, this casino should have a much lower security rating.

There are serious withdrawal issues, withdrawal limits, additional verifications, and delays. Contacting support can also be very difficult.

More importantly, I requested an account ban due to my gambling addiction. My request wasn't granted until almost 72 hours later, even though support responded to my initial message within a minute. During this time, I continued receiving promotions, and a VIP manager contacted me asking if I was sure I wanted to ban my account. I had to request the ban three times.

Additionally, the casino contacts players who have lost money by phone, asking if they want to continue playing and offering them bonuses. I'm not saying this practice is illegal in itself, but if the casino has the ability to actively contact players and encourage them to continue playing, I don't understand why it can't respond quickly enough to a clear request for a ban due to gambling addiction.

Just look at other threads about this casino; other players have reported similar issues, and in some cases, refunds have been issued. So, it doesn't appear this is an isolated incident.

I believe Casino Guru should seriously consider lowering the security rating of this casino and take all these issues into consideration.

There are other casinos that operate much more efficiently and better.

In my opinion, we agreed to disagree, but such suggestions are more or less my line of work, so feel free to address them to me. The thing is that we work with certain benchmarks I already explained. In light of that, manual adjustment of the process is not an option and since the complaint ended as it did, my colleagues can hardly somehow lower the index based on the rejected complaint. That's a very concrete and basic fact on which the whole system was built. The other players you mentioned also have a chance to prove the casino's actions wrong, and I can assure you that unresolved complaints have a direct impact on the casino's safety index.

I understand this is about you disagreeing with what we do, and that's ok. However, I guess it's obvious that such posts will always end with the same response. We won't change the rules based on forum posts. I think it's fair to add that what my colleagues do may not fit everyone's expectations. I'd say that's the main subject of this conversation.

Feel free to check for any other website with more suitable criteria. Whatever suits you the best, of course—no pressure.