IviBet Casino Review

The player from Italy felt deceived by 'Ivi bet', disputing its claim of having a license from Curacao and accusing it of promoting false information. She had played there for €10,000 under the impression that it was a licensed site. However, we had clarified that the casino's licensing status was clearly stated in our review, and advised her to contact the licensing authorities if she had an issue with the casino's claims about their licensing. As this was beyond our purview, we had to close the complaint.

The German player had his account closed and 2680 Euros were confiscated due to the existence of a duplicate account. The player had provided all necessary documents except for a utility bill as proof, yet the account was still closed even though the casino chat support had assured that the documents provided would be enough. After the player clarified that he wasn't aware of any duplicate accounts, we had requested proof from the casino. However, the casino did not respond to our repeated attempts to communicate. As a result, we had marked the complaint as 'unresolved'. We had recommended the player to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further help.

The Italian player was struggling to finalize the account verification process for withdrawal due to the required screenshot with account details. The issue lay in generating a screenshot where all requested details were visible on a single page. Despite the player having provided the necessary documentation, the casino initially rejected the withdrawal requests. The casino later verified the account but only after the player had lost the funds. We concluded that the player's decision to continue playing led to the loss of funds. As such, the complaint was deemed irrelevant and was subsequently rejected.

The player from Ireland had deposited 100 euro into IVIbet and was asked for additional identification that she could not provide. Despite a request for account closure and deposit refund, the refund was initially not processed. We had asked for further information from the player to better understand the situation. After extending the time for response, the player confirmed that she had received her refund. We had marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Austria attempted to withdraw 427.32 EUR via SKRILL after winning, but the casino refused the request, citing multiple accounts, and subsequently closed the account. The player maintained that he only had one account. Despite the player's insistence that he only had one account and had passed the KYC verification, the casino did not cooperate in resolving the issue. We attempted to contact the casino multiple times but received no response. Since the casino was operating without a valid license and did not refer to any ADR service, there was no gaming authority to address. Therefore, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved'. The complaint was reopened, but after finding out that the case is regarding the sports betting, it was closed as "rejected".

The player from the Philippines had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player had expressed frustration about the delay and suspected he was communicating with chatbots. He reported having received his payout after 77 hours.

The player from Sweden had experienced difficulties withdrawing funds from his disabled casino account and had sought guidance on how to proceed. We had reached out to him for more information regarding his issue with IviBet Casino, and even extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to his lack of response to our queries, we were unable to conduct further investigations. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece had requested a lifetime self-exclusion and account blocking due to a gambling addiction. Despite assurances, the casino had not blocked the account, which led to additional losses. The casino had argued that the player did not specify a reason for the self-exclusion request. The player had claimed that the casino marked his self-exclusion request as complete without actually implementing it. We found that the player had not provided a clear reason for wanting his account blocked, which was a critical step in the process. As a result, we had to reject the complaint as unjustified.

A VIP player from Greece, who had a fully verified account at ivibet, faced a delay in receiving his significant winnings from the sports section. Despite having experienced quick withdrawals in the past, he was told that a queue was causing the current delay. We had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting his withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the player later confirmed that his earnings had been credited to his Skrill account. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from Germany had had an unresolved deposit issue with IviBet. He had deposited 500 euros, which had been charged from his bank account but not credited to his casino account. Despite having provided evidence and communicated with the payment service provider, the casino had denied receiving the funds. The player had continued to communicate with the casino. After a prolonged period, the player had confirmed receiving his funds. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by our team.

The player from Greece is facing difficulties in withdrawing an amount of 1,509 euros from IviBet casino since the 13th of October. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from British Columbia has been trying to verify their account with IVI BET casino to withdraw their winnings. Despite completing multiple steps for verification, the withdrawal has been repeatedly declined. The player is now being asked to provide an alternative identification document. After we contacted the casino, it informed us about finishing the review of the documents provided for verification. The player confirmed that their withdrawal request was approved and the money successfully received, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Austria attempted a deposit which got debited from their bank account, but it was not credited to their casino account. It turned out that the delay in crediting the deposit in question to his casino account was caused by an unexpected error in the casino's payment system. We were informed the missing deposit was successfully credited to the complainant's casino account a few days before the casino let us know about it, which was subsequently confirmed by the complainant. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Greece has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player received his winnings, however, they were reduced. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Chile has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Spain has four pending withdrawals totaling €8,000, despite having a fully verified account. The casino has not provided a clear timeframe for these withdrawals. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Chile requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada encountered a technical glitch where her win wasn't credited. The player confirmed the missing amount was credited to her casino balance and therefore we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player was unable to close his account as the casino ignored his request. The case had been closed since the casino team stopped responding. The issue was later reopened, and after further communication, the player's winnings were successfully returned to his bank account. The complaint was marked as resolved after confirmation of the refund.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal but his request got rejected due to the insufficient verification documents. The player did not answer our questions for two weeks, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Greece requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Ireland requested a withdrawal, but it has not been received. Since we have not received any response from the casino, we were forced to close this complaint as 'unresolved'. We ended up closing the complaint as "resolved" because the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from Ecuador had had an issue with IviBet Casino regarding a blocked account and withdrawal problems due to currency exchange issues. The player's account had been verified and he had chosen ARS (Argentinian Peso) as his currency. He had claimed that the casino owed him around 70,000 pesos. The casino had accused him of violating their terms and conditions, alleging that he had abused conversion/exchange rates. The casino first had failed to respond to the complaint, leading to its closure as 'unresolved'. However, the complaint was later reopened and marked as 'unjustified' after the casino had provided sufficient details of the player's breach of terms and conditions.

The player from Romania had been accused of opening multiple accounts. The complaint had been closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. Later, we reopened the complaint based on the information received from the casino. The player claimed he had not opened multiple accounts and that his winnings had been obtained fairly without the use of bonuses. However, the casino provided evidence that two accounts were linked to the player and were accessed from the same device and IP address. Despite multiple requests for clarification from the player, he consistently provided misleading information. Therefore, we concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by creating multiple accounts. The casino's actions were justified and the complaint was closed as 'unjustified'.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece had requested self-exclusion from an online casino, expecting his remaining active balance to be automatically paid out, which was a common practice in some companies. However, the withdrawal did not occur and the player had not completed account authentication. Despite multiple attempts by our team to communicate with the casino regarding this issue, there was no response. Consequently, we had to close the case as 'unresolved'.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany was accused of fraudulent activity. The player reported that the casino only refunded his deposit and did not provide an explanation for the cancellation of his winnings. After multiple attempts to contact the casino, we received evidence of opposite betting activity, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Hamburg has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.