Winpot: I requested to close my account, reported gambling addiction and debts; later there were reactivations and a possible

I want to share my experience with Winpot Online Mexico because I am about to file a complaint with SEGOB and I also have the documents prepared for PROFECO .

I am not claiming that an authority has already determined an irregularity. I want to present a documented sequence of events that I consider important.

On January 6, 2025, I requested the closure of my account via LiveChat and explained that I had lost a lot of money. Support indicated that they would escalate the request.

On January 13th, I again requested immediate closure via email and reported an approximate debt of $500,000 MXN.

On January 14, 2025, I sent the central email for my case. I explained that my income was approximately $4,000 MXN per week, that I was using credit to continue playing, that my debt exceeded half a million pesos, and that I had serious financial problems.

I also reported anxiety, depression, and gambling addiction, explained that I had already tried to close the account, and specifically asked what measures Winpot implemented to protect vulnerable players.

In addition, I indicated that my activity had reached levels of approximately $100,000 MXN in a single day.

After that communication, there are messages from Winpot dated January 15th and 16th indicating that my account had been reactivated.

That is one of the central points:

closure request + detailed vulnerability communication + subsequent reactivations.

During 2025 there are also records of promotions, cashback, loyalty and VIP service.

Another relevant point is that historical information I could previously see on my profile has since disappeared. Among those records was a badge related to having gambled approximately $100,000 MXN in a single session.

I'm not saying that Winpot deliberately removed that information. I can't know if it was deleted, archived, or simply stopped being displayed.

However, Winpot later stated that my account records were backed up and secured, so I believe it should be possible to verify that history.

On December 29, 2025 , in another LiveChat, support indicated that they were changing my account to " permanent closure ".

Later, in July 2026, when I formally raised the issue as a Responsible Gaming case, Winpot did apply a temporary preventative block.

Therefore, one of my main questions is:

What Responsible Gaming measures were applied after my communication in January 2025 and why is there clear evidence of a preventative block until July 2026?

I currently have 195 individually reconstructed payment transactions for a minimum of $108,213.11 MXN.

That amount is documented externally, but I do not present it as a net loss or as an automatically refundable amount.

There is also a larger figure still under review.

Based on historical information I have been able to recover, I have a preliminary estimate that deposits successfully credited after the email of January 14, 2025 could be around $800,000 MXN.

I'm not yet stating that this figure is completely verified. It needs to be compared with Winpot's internal records.

But, if this is confirmed, I believe the central question is obvious:

How did an operation of that magnitude continue after the operator had already received information about indebtedness, use of credit for gambling, gambling problems, and closure requests?

I am about to submit my file to SEGOB, requesting a review of closures, reactivations, Responsible Gaming controls, logs and financial history.

I also have the documentation ready for PROFECO.

I'm not posting this to claim the case is resolved. I'm sharing it because I want to know if other players have experienced something similar.

Have you requested an account closure and then had it reactivated? What did the casino do when you reported gambling-related issues?

Hey, I just want to say that if you want to talk, I'll try to follow up here. I, of course, understand you would like to talk with players instead, so it's just a heads-up.

I'm sorry for what you've been through.

Thank you, Radka. Yes, I would like to know Casino Guru's perspective on a specific point regarding responsible gaming.

Beyond the financial amounts involved in my case, my main question is the following:

What does Casino Guru think a responsible operator should do when a player has repeatedly requested the closure of their account and has also expressly communicated problems with gambling, debt, and the use of credits to continue playing, but subsequently requests or accepts a reactivation?

I am particularly interested in knowing whether, according to Casino Guru's criteria, after receiving a vulnerability notification of that level, it would be reasonable for the operator to allow new reactivations and continue offering access to gaming, promotions, cashback, or other loyalty benefits, or whether additional protection measures should have been applied.

I am not seeking a determination of financial liability here, nor am I seeking a pre-resolved formal complaint. I am interested in understanding what standard of responsible gaming Casino Guru considers appropriate in this situation.

Thank you for guiding me.

You are welcome. The casino has been contacted to explain its position, which is important here because we need to consider the concerns based on both sides of the situation.

There is perhaps a small distinction worth making at this stage. A complaint works primarily as a dispute process rather than as a broader investigation into whether a casino, in general, meets all of our recommendations, principles, or responsible gambling expectations. It allows us to look more closely at a specific situation, including the player's evidence and the casino's explanation.

That does not mean we don't have our own principles regarding responsible gambling. In fact, our position on self-exclusion is quite clear: when a player explicitly identifies a gambling problem as the reason for wanting to exclude themselves, we believe the exclusion should be implemented swiftly and permanently. A subsequent request from the player to return does not, in our view, automatically remove the significance of the original gambling-problem disclosure.

The important part now is determining how that principle applies to the actual sequence of events in your case. This is where the casino's response, the exact communications between you and the casino, and the circumstances of the subsequent reactivations become important. We don't want to make assumptions about those parts before hearing the casino's position.

So I would suggest leaving the specific assessment of the case to Igor and the casino within the complaint process. Once the casino explains how it handled your previous closure requests and the information you provided about your gambling problems, we will have a much better basis for assessing the situation from both perspectives.