Definitely a contradiction!

Hi,

I have just read through some open complaints out of interest and had to be very surprised, because Casino Guru demonstrably contradicts itself here with regard to the statement in the last post that the two affected casinos have nothing to do with each other, because exactly the opposite - that is, that the two Casinos do have the same management - they do... according to Raptor Casino's own Casino Guru review!

Here's the complaint:

https://www.casino.guru/raptor-casino-the-player-requires-a-complete

Therefore, I think that the complaint of the user is very well justified!

Hi,

I'm sorry - could not find this complaint, and do not understand the whole post.

These are the current complaints:

If you can explain further, we can talk about that I guess.

Hello,

this current complaint is exactly what I mean (my link is to this one).

Petronela mentions here in the last post that the Amok and Raptor Casino are not related in any way, but exactly the opposite is mentioned in your Raptor Casino post - namely that these two casinos do have the same management or are related.

Now understood? 😉

Well,

I find the now unjustified complaint (here , your link is not working), but I still don't understand which post you mean. 🙂

Both casinos are owned by different companies and also licenses are different.

Raptor Casino

Amok Casino

I check the Raptor's Casino General Discussion but found nothing.

What am I still missing, please?

Hello, I here the sender of the complaint!

I also think my complaint was more than justified! It's unfortunate that the casino guru treated the complaint so calmly and considered it an unwarranted complaint.

Raptor casino is indeed a sister company of amok casino and I got this information from their customer service as well, but casino guru just ignored this matter.

I have a lot of evidence that behind Raptor Casino is the infiniza limited company, what does it belong to (amok, mountaingold, refuel, etc.)

all these casinos belong to the same partnership program, which means they are sister companies. This fact can also be found on Raptor Casino's website when you click on the afflicates section. I have also received an official email from afflicates affiliate program where they confirm that they are sister casinos.

I think casino guru acted irresponsibly with my complaint and rejected it even though the facts say otherwise, and I'm not the only one who noticed this.

they clearly acted irresponsibly towards me.

Hi Radka.

yes you are right they operate under a different license. Raptor runs under the curaco license and amok runs under the mga license. But they have the same management, the same owner, they are sister companies.

if you go to Raptor Casino's page you will see their partners (sister casinos) at the bottom and there is amok casino. If you browse Raptor Casino's terms of use, you can notice that INFINIZA LIMITED is mentioned in the terms of use, which is behind amok casino. Raptor casino has 100% the same conditions as amok casino. Their affiliate program confirmed to me that they are sister companies.

the fact that the casinos operate under a different license does not exclude the fact that they could not be sister companies. So my complaint was justified.

the internet is also full of information about their sisterhood.

I think Petronela acted wrongly by rejecting my complaint and not taking the facts into account.

Hello,

I'm sorry to say that but I fully agree with the result of the complaint. The problem is, Petronela explained that there is nothing like a "sister casino" when it comes to the player's protection through self-exclusion.

"As I mentioned several times before, if you haven't requested the self-exclusion from Raptor Casino directly, there's nothing we can help you with. I fully agree that it would be ideal if a player requests the self-exclusion from one casino and is automatically protected in all sister casinos. Unfortunately, this is not standard practice yet."

It's vital to understand how the business works and gain the ability to self-exclude properly in the future, rather than complain about how wrong everything is. It is, but we can't change that. The standards are as explained, keep that always in mind, and rely only on yourself to self-exclude correctly. Meaning, always self-exclude in every casino directly, and do not expect that casinos would inform each other about your request - they usually don't. 🙁

Sad, but true.

Thanks for the reply Radka.

I still think this is very contradictory. the contradiction is caused by this fact:

new casinos open every month, the same operators open new casinos. A problem player from your point of view is never safe because he should send emails to new casinos every month asking for self-exclusion. Is there any logic to this? This logic is not even brought by mgan's Game license or curaco's game license.

on the other hand, a player who requests in his email to be permanently excluded from AFFILIATED COMPANIES should be protected immediately, not only at the casino where he requested, but also from sister casinos because the player requested so. If you read the terms and conditions of the casinos, it is clearly mentioned there "tell us if you want the self-exclusion to also extend to the sister company's casinos"

I received a response to my blocking request:

We care about our players and take responsible gambling seriously here and at our sister casinos. We can now confirm that your game account has been closed according to our responsible Gaming policies

Hello Lolna123,

Thank you for this update. Sadly our point is still the same - such practice is not a standard, hence we feel it's not a good idea to approach such disputes differently. We could easily influence players to think that asking for the self-exclusion in one casino within the same group or owner would be enough.

According to our rich experiences - it is not. We always prefer the safer way. So we advise players to self-exclude in every single casino directly. This is the safest way - that's all we care about.

We have not to said that what you described does not happen, BUT it should still be considered an exception.

I understand your approach, take ours as a way of precaution.

I'm happy you gained this confirmation, but to me - it does not say the confirmation was done due to your request made elsewhere. It just says other casinos in the group value responsible gambling too.

Feel free to explain further.