Unfair verdict- to players please seek a iot

Yesterday, after five months, my complaint againts Heats Casino was closed and rejected following the casino’s submission of evidence alleging that I own multiple accounts. Their decision was based on "IP address, device environment, and user agent," as well as the timeline of KYC requests and the lack of response from a supposed secondary account.

This decision feels deeply unjust to me, because I am certain that I have never had any other accounts. I explained that the IP overlap could be due to the specific type of network operated by my internet provider, but I still do not understand what is meant by "device environment" and "user agent." As for the "timeline of KYC requests" and the "lack of response from the secondary account" being treated as proof that I created it—this sounds, frankly, absurd and unconvincing, in which way it showing that indeed I was creator of this second account ?

At the beginning of this process, I believed in your fairness and integrity. Now, however, I have come to the conclusion that the outcome could never have been different—that in such cases you consistently side with the casino, as you are part of the same industry. It operates like a vast machine, where your role is to attract new players, while its true purpose is not to provide enjoyment, but to drain people of their energy and, ultimately, everything else.

To anyone reading this: things will eventually change, and the true nature of this system will be exposed soon. For now, I urge you to seek other forms of entertainment. These people cooperating together and do not have your best interests at heart. Their AI-driven systems are designed to rip you off from much money as possible, pushing you further and further down, when you eventually somehow win they will use every ridiculous execuse to not pay you.

This post will likely be dismissed or removed as a desperate attempt to defend theirselves, delay the inevitable—but whatever is meant to happen will happen, regardless.

We have no reason to delete your post, for sure.

Our complaint team has thoroughly investigated this case and unfortunately found out that there were duplicate accounts where the same IP was used, the same device system was used, and also identical information was submitted on both accounts, actually.

That is why your case was rejected from our side. In such cases, there is nothing much we can do.

So evidence must be prepared as this operator is known for creativity. Whatever, i will move forward and never dont spend cent on any site, the true nature of things will begin to be seen as it really is, not as people are told to believe it is soon and our positions will be reversed. And why with so clear evidence it had to take 5 months to conclude It ? 🙂

How does linking online casino accounts work in practice?

I have a general question that came to my mind after some experiences.

How does it usually work in practice – are casinos actually able to uniquely link two accounts just based on things like IP address, device, or browser details?

Or are they rather treated as clues that only the combination of several elements can confirm something?

I'm asking out of curiosity, because from the outside it looks quite unclear, especially when someone uses, for example, mobile internet or a shared network.

I'm curious what it looks like in real situations, not just in theory.

Hello, it is sadly rather general.

It more or less depends on the operator, its platform settings, and the concrete situation. From this perspective, for example, when a casino claims that a player registered more than one account just based on the same IP, it is not enough evidence for our mediators, and other patterns and matches need to be presented. To be honest, using the same concrete device under the same IP is very suspicious because, mostly in the rules, it is stated that a player is not allowed to share his account credentials and password.

Practically, since you mentioned a real situation, a concrete situation would be needed to describe the real matches and possible patterns on the same device or IP. 🙁

Hello, it feels odd, doesn't it?

Actually, against all of those matches, there are not many possible and provable explanations that would allow the mediator to oppose the casino's perspective. When it comes to length, I was truly a hard one, and the majority of the time was spent on explaining and gathering all the matches of those accounts because, as I just described in my other post, mediators do not consider only the matched IP address and device as bulletproof. It took a huge amount of time, but sadly the casino provided far too many matches.

There is very little we can do to argue against the same details used on more than one account.

I'm also sorry it ended this way and I hope it was the last issue with multiple accounts you have.

Thank you for the explanation.

I understand that a combination of factors (not just IP address or device) is used to identify connections between accounts.

However, this is precisely what makes the situation difficult to understand from a player's perspective.

If there were indeed a lot of compliant data (such as personal or financial data) that most regulations would require to be accessible for security and compliance purposes, this raises a broader question:

How is it possible that the same user could create new accounts multiple times and continue to access the platform even though such links were available?

From the point of view of responsible gaming, this seems crucial – not only detecting connections after the fact, but above all effectively preventing re-access when such patterns are already identifiable.

I am not questioning the existence of the links themselves, but how they are used in practice in the context of player protection.

I am genuinely interested in how this is resolved in similar cases.

I quite agree with you and I appreciate this opportunity to talk about it.

Many players submit complaints with us because they are not allowed to see proofs or were generally speaking not part of the actual investigation of their accounts. From a player's perspective, this is very rarely tolerated or understood. However, and here comes the most interesting part, since every situation is different and contextual proofs and similarities play a role, regulators do not provide a guidebook on how to resolve each and every scenario, which leaves casinos to apply their own approach. For example, we have to accept that players are not allowed to see concrete proofs, but we still try to find a fair resolution based on each and every concrete finding and context.

Thus, there is sadly no concrete answer to general questions, if you understand where I'm heading. Believe me, I'm trying to be completely honest here, and I still understand how it looks from players' points of view.

Thank you for your honest answer – I understand that each case is different and based on context and a set of different connections.

However, from the player's perspective, there is a certain systemic problem that is difficult to ignore.

On the one hand, the player is evaluated based on a set of data and connections to which they have no access. Therefore, there is no real way to verify whether the presented relationships are complete, correct, or correctly interpreted.

On the other hand, if a player wants to challenge an operator's decision, he or she often has no way of obtaining this evidence either directly from the casino or through subsequent procedures – which in practice means that he or she has to defend himself or herself "in the dark".

Additionally, it can be noticed that some communication on such matters is transferred outside public platforms (e.g. to email contact), which further limits the transparency of the entire process and makes it difficult to objectively evaluate it from the outside.

This raises the question of the balance of the entire process:

In a situation where one party has a full set of information and the other does not have access to it, can we talk about a truly fair hearing of the case?

Additionally, since – as you mentioned – there are no strict guidelines and casinos have some freedom of interpretation, another doubt arises:

How is a situation in which potential irregularities may occur on both sides assessed in practice?

I mean cases where:

– the player may unknowingly violate certain rules

– but at the same time, protection mechanisms (e.g. access restrictions or self-exclusion) do not work fully effectively

Is there any room for a more balanced approach in these situations, or does the responsibility always lie solely with the player?

These are issues that seem crucial from the point of view of real player protection, not just formal.

Well, as I said, there is no concrete answer. You have been raising general questions like the balance or some process or applications from the casino's side, to which it is not possible to answer concretely without actually handling a concrete situation. Therefore, any forms of, let's say, evaluation cannot be done on the forum, for example.

The responsibility always lies on both sides. Hence, the complaint always includes the player and the casino.

Mistakes occur on both sides, and the balance you mentioned is always our main goal; however, the full context of all events must be recognized in order to find the balance.

I understand what you mean – that without the full context of a specific case it is difficult to make a clear assessment.

However, this is where a certain practical difficulty arises from the player's perspective.

Since the assessment requires full context, and at the same time the player does not have access to key information and evidence, in practice it is very difficult for him to present his situation in a way that would allow for a true assessment of both sides.

As a result, a certain paradox arises:

To talk about balance, a complete picture of the situation is needed, but one of the parties does not have the opportunity to know or present it.

Therefore, I am more interested in understanding what it looks like in practice:

Is there any mechanism that allows the player to realistically respond to such findings if they don't have access to the full context?

Because from the outside it may give the impression that the "full picture" of the situation is only available to one side.

I used many sites before and it was my first issue with any site and pretty sure the last one as I wouldn’t touch any site with a barge pole again. Especially as I had once in lifetime winning, unlucky with one of the shadiest operators and from which I was just deprived of. But enjoy for now.

It is Łukasz who hurts me the most that even though I declared my willingness to cooperate and share all the necessary documents, technical aspects of my devices and the full specifications of my internet connection, they did not give me any chance to understand or make any attempt to explain the similarities between my account and the other one.

During those five months, the casino didn't contact me personally once. They only contacted a mediator, which I interpreted as an attempt to prove my guilt at all costs. At one point, I felt less like one of the parties in the dispute and more like a problem they were dealing with. I had constant access to my account, and I wonder if the verdict would have been different if I had lost most of that amount.

Despite the evidence seemingly pointing to my guilt, the entire process took five months. There was no problem with the previous deposits, which I lost; this one appeared after I won. I'll probably never know who was actually right in this dispute. I only know that I checked every email address I have, whether I had accidentally created a second account, and none of them were listed in the database. Therefore, I'm certain the second account wasn't created by me or anyone else in the household, as I live only with my elderly parents, who are beyond computer literate. I also don't have a Wi-Fi network that someone could connect to, so I access the internet via an Ethernet cable connected directly to my computer. In conclusion, I believe I was treated unfairly, to put it mildly, or rather, dishonestly, which makes me simply disgusted with the entire online gambling industry, mainly because I lost a large sum of money throughout my life, always believing in the chance of a lucky win, which I finally achieved. It's just a shame I didn't see this industry for what it actually is and the fact that honor is practically non-existent in this environment, and the regulations, which we are led to believe are supposed to ensure fair gaming, often exist only as an excuse to avoid paying players a penny.

But as they say, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger,

I greet you and wish you all the best.

Thanks for sharing your story – it's clear this was a very difficult situation for you.

What you describe clearly demonstrates how problematic the lack of direct communication and access to specific information on the player's side can be, especially when the case is based on technical matches or data that cannot be independently verified.

In such cases, what we discussed earlier seems particularly important – that is, how the player is supposed to realistically respond to the findings if they do not have access to the full context and evidence.

I wonder whether in your case it was even possible to present your version in a way that was actually taken into account in the assessment, or whether it was limited to indirect answers.

It's likely my version wasn't taken into account at all. I believe the casino merely had a similar external IP address between my account and the other one. This, as I've explained, stems from the fact that my internet provider is the local so-called Municipal Computer Network, whose network operates as a public network. Therefore, each of its members/customers appears online under the same external IP address, residing in different households.

The people from casino.guru reported that the second account had identical personal data, which I believe was simply fabricated by the casino administration. The founder did not respond to KYC verification requests, which indicates that he had not used this account for a long time.

In my opinion, the administration took advantage of this fact and entered my data identical to that in my real account, which was shared with the mediators as evidence of my breaking the rules. I can also believe that other similarities could have been fabricated somehow, although I am not sure if such a possibility exists at all.

These are just my guesses, but after reading about the negative experiences of players at Del Oro and Heats casinos, I believe they are highly probable, as this operator seems very creative in finding excuses not to have to pay players anything while accepting their deposits without any problems. In my opinion, it operates primarily with the intention of making money, even resorting to immoral practices, targeting players with gambling addictions, etc. It was never intended to provide entertainment in a fair environment.

You can read about everything on review sites and other gambling forums, please pay special attention when reading the casinomeister forum about del oro, after my experiences I am inclined to believe in the reliability of any negative opinion about them.

Thanks for elaborating – it really shows how complex these situations can be, especially when technical issues like IP addresses and other connections are involved.

It is in such cases that the question arises even more about how the verification and evaluation of these connections look like in practice – especially when the player does not have the opportunity to check them themselves or refer to the details.

Regardless of the specific case, it seems quite difficult from the perspective of transparency of the entire process.

I am curious how the credibility of individual elements is assessed in such situations and whether there is any standard that determines what is sufficient evidence and what is not.

Dear Lukasz,

Because you're going back to the same topic and asking general questions that can't be answered in a concrete way. Please stop what you're doing. This is getting out of hand again, and I really don't get why you need to keep bringing up the same general points. In this case, I want to let you know that the issue is over and any other posts will be deleted again. Furthermore, your access to the forum will be limited. We've been here before, and I'm sorry to say that your approach hasn't changed.

Please choose a different forum for questions like "Is there a way for the player to realistically respond to such findings if they don't have access to the full context?"

I for example, have repeatedly emphasized that without real-world examples, there is no satisfactory answer.

I'm sorry you had to go through this, and I'm sure going through those more technical details again would be unhelpful. I, as well as my colleagues, understood that this particular situation hurts because from a human perspective it sounds unfair.

I'm sorry we could not force the casino to change their standpoint.

Dear Pietres21,

I’ve experienced an almost identical situation with their sister site Del Oro Casino, with the same outcome on Casino Guru.

After a win (~€22k), my KYC was delayed and my account was then closed for "multiple accounts" (they claimed more than 3) based on IP and device fingerprinting.

I only used one account, my real identity, and played exclusively on an iPhone, mainly on Pragmatic Play slots, without any deposit bonuses.

I briefly used a VPN for a few minutes only because their own support explicitly advised me to do so to access a Pragmatic Play promotion.

When I mentioned this, the explanation shifted and fingerprinting was presented as the main evidence.

What I find particularly concerning is that I was never given access to any actual evidence. I was not included in any meaningful exchange, and any "proof" used against me was never shared, which is paradoxical when it concerns personal data about me.

When I submitted my case to Casino Guru, I provided extensive elements, and I genuinely expected a proper investigation. Instead, my complaint was closed without further questions. I even tried to reopen it twice with additional evidence, but nothing changed. https://casino.guru/complaints/deloro-casino-player-s-account-has-been-closed-and

The alleged "multiple accounts" were never clearly identified: I was never told how many exactly, whether they were under my identity, or whether there was any overlap in activity during a very short timeframe (my account was active from Feb 19 to Feb 28).

At this point, I’m trying to understand whether these cases share the same underlying pattern.

Did you have 2FA enabled on your account? And what device were you playing from iPhone or computer?

I’ve also noticed a growing number of negative reviews regarding Heats and Del Oro on Trustpilot, and they are flagged as "rogue" on Casinomeister.

This makes the contrast with their ratings on other platforms quite surprising.

For a broader audience, there are a few things I would like to narrow down, but I won't respond to Atsejjj's post since it may not be appreciated.

First of all, in order to get our hands on casino account details and to be able to inspect the casino's findings, we are not allowed to share those publicly or also with theplayer in case the situation wasn't concluded to be in the player's favor. That not something we could bypass and from a practical point of view, it makes sense. I know that players with unresolved cases are especially interested in those proofs, yet there is also a reason why associated casinos do not share details even with those players who supposedly started the whole complaint in the first place. It's simple: by explaining how the system detects flaws, raises red flags and matches matches, players would be given a guidebook on how to avoid those detection mechanism, thats not something we could argue on with casinos.

Of course it is easy to align this with the overall dissatisfaction and include unverified user experiences from other sources into the cocktail. It's logical, yet less practical.

We are not saying our indexes suit everyone because our approach is more data and fast-driven than on the other platforms. So, anyone is welcome to compare casinos anywhere, and if things go sideways, we will gladly try to help, even though our free services have their limits.

Wishing you all safe and easy withdrawals.