LuckyBlock Casino Review

The player from Washington faced withdrawal problems due to accusations of having multiple accounts. These accusations stemmed from the player's friends signing up at the same IP address while at his house, but the accounts belonged to different individuals. The complaint was rejected by us due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, preventing further investigation.

The player from Turkey had completed the KYC and successfully made the first withdrawal on LuckyBlock. However, a second withdrawal request for 27,444 USDT had been pending for over 24 hours. The complaint was initially closed as unresolved due to the casino's failure to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claims of multiple accounts and failed KYC verification. Upon further review, the complaint was reopened and ultimately closed as unjustified, with reasonable grounds established for the casino's claims of bonus abuse and multiple accounts, confirming that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The player from the United Kingdom had submitted a self-exclusion request to Lucky Block Casino, which was ignored. The player continued gambling, lost large amounts of money, and experienced emotional and financial distress. Upon reviewing the case, we found that the player had not explicitly mentioned having a gambling problem in his self-exclusion request. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of clear communication about the gambling issue to the casino. Guidance on how to properly request self-exclusion in the future was provided to the player.

A player from Illinois had winnings amounting to $25,000 in Lucky Block. They encountered difficulties when trying to withdraw, as a duplicate account was found, which was now inactive. This led to the withdrawal being put on hold and subsequently, access to the active account was blocked. The player explained that the duplicate account had been created due to losing access to the original account. The casino processed the withdrawal, but the issue with the remaining balance remained unresolved. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Mexico accidentally exceeded the maximum bet limit during a game due to a misplaced button on the interface. The casino confiscated his winnings of $17,000, citing a breach of the terms and conditions. The player requested that his winnings be reinstated, arguing that the error was unintentional. After reviewing the case and the game mechanics, it was determined that the bet amount could only be increased manually, making it unlikely that the breach was accidental. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the casino was found to be justified in following its rules.

The player from Germany was struggling with a delayed withdrawal from LuckyBlock casino. After numerous interactions with live chat agents and submitting multiple additional documents for verification, the player had still not received his winnings amounting to 14,300 USDT. The casino had been ignoring his emails as well. After several exchanges with the Complaints Team and providing further requested documents, the player eventually received his winnings. However, he expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's data retention practices, which he believed violated European law. The Complaints Team advised the player to contact the appropriate authorities regarding this issue, as it fell outside their area of expertise. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Canada had requested a permanent self-exclusion from an online casino but was still able to deposit and gamble 800 USD. He had claimed that the casino did not follow responsible gambling guidelines. The player had communicated this issue via live chat and requested a refund. Given the presented information about the timeframe of events, we concluded that the casino had acted within a reasonable time frame to close the account and protect the player. The player disagreed, but without further evidence, we couldn't assist him further. We suggested the player use our Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool for further help.

The player from France had registered and deposited 430 euros to LuckyBlock Casino. However, his account was blocked for verification when they noted French players were not accepted. He had lost his identity card and offered other documents for verification but the casino continued to refuse, leaving his account blocked. After a series of discussions with the Complaints Team, it was established that the casino was within its rights to request specific identification documents and restrict certain jurisdictions. The player, unable to provide the required documents, requested assistance in recovering his initial deposits. The Complaints Team mediated with the casino and finally managed to secure a refund for the player, who confirmed receipt of his funds. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Japan had participated in a casino tournament but had experienced issues with points not being properly credited due to a game glitch. The glitch had affected all participants and the casino had not offered any explanation or point correction. Despite the player's claim, the Complaints Team had been unable to proceed with the complaint due to insufficient evidence provided by the player from previous complaints. The player had been advised to submit additional evidence for reconsideration.

The player from Japan had participated in a casino tournament, but found that the points reflected were inaccurate. Despite the casino's assertions that the points were correct, the player insisted they were not aligned with his game history. The player had provided evidence of his game history to support his claim. We had asked the player to forward the communication between him and the casino. After reviewing the forwarded communication and the player's game history, we concluded that the casino had already contacted the game provider and everything had been deemed correct. As the casino only provided the platform for the tournament and did not manage the point system, we advised the player to contact the game provider directly if he still believed the points were counted inaccurately. Based on these facts, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom deposited over £1450 in Bitcoin on Lucky block casino and subsequently discovered that players from his location are restricted. His account was blocked and he is now seeking a reimbursement of his deposit.

The player from Germany had an account with LuckyBlock Casino where they won a significant amount of about 5,700 Euros. The Casino cancelled the withdrawal, claiming a violation of bonus conditions, and the entire balance was reset to zero. The player disputed violating any terms as the bet size was kept within the permissible range. We got involved to mediate the situation, requested and received the player's game history from the casino. After a thorough review, it was confirmed that the player had violated the max bet rule multiple times. As a result, we had to reject the player's complaint due to the clear breach of terms and conditions.

The player from Germany had issues with a delayed withdrawal of $600 from an online casino, which attributed the delay to a technical problem. The Complaints Team attempted to engage with the player to gather more details and potentially resolve the issue. However, the player did not respond to the team's inquiries. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to the lack of necessary information for further investigation. The player retained the option to reopen the complaint in the future if they wished to proceed.

The player from Canada had encountered problems when he attempted to withdraw his winnings from an online casino. The casino had claimed that the player had self-excluded in the past and, therefore, had closed his account after he deposited and played. The casino was reviewing the player's KYC documents at that time. We, the complaints team, had attempted to engage with the player to better understand the situation and potentially assist in resolving the issue. However, due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. Despite this, the player retained the option to reopen this complaint in the future.

The player from Germany had experienced issues with LuckyBlock Casino, stating that while deposits were processed quickly, the casino presented numerous obstacles when it came to winnings withdrawals. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more details about the issue by asking a series of questions, such as the verification status of the player's account and the nature of the withdrawal problem. However, the player did not respond to these inquiries, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication. Despite this, we had made it clear that the player could reopen the complaint at any time if they wished to continue the discussion.

The player from the UK made a withdrawal request of 18 ETH but it failed, and the funds have not returned to his casino account. He has contacted customer support and they are investigating, without specifying a timeframe. The player finds this concerning because of the amount of money involved. The complaint was resolved as the player received his money.

The player from Japan had won a tournament but didn't receive any prize. They claimed that the terms and conditions had been changed during the competition, and despite complying with these changes, the casino had not transferred the winnings based on the amended rules. The player had provided evidence of a 1000x multiplier they had achieved in a tournament, which they believed should have resulted in a prize. The casino had offered 25 free spins as compensation for an erroneous email sent to the player, but the player insisted on a cash prize as per the tournament's terms. After extensive communication and review of the betting history provided by the casino, it was not clear if the player should have placed higher in the tournament. The case had been closed as 'unresolved - uncertain case' due to a lack of conclusive evidence from both the player and the casino.

The player from New York had deposited $300 and won $11,000. When he tried to withdraw his winnings, the casino demanded KYC verification. The player had provided all the necessary documents including his driver's license, a selfie, and a utility bill. Even though the documents were accepted, the player was unable to play because he was located in a geo-restricted region. The casino had confirmed that the player would be paid out his winnings. The player later confirmed receipt of the funds. The issue was successfully resolved with the cooperation of the casino and the player.

The player from Japan participated in a casino tournament and, despite having more points than the top finisher, didn't rank and was informed their bet was excluded due to an internal decision. They previously verified the participation conditions with the support team and believes that they should have won a prize. The casino stated that the player had placed bets under the minimum amount to qualify for the tournament, but the player stated that the rule was updated after the tournament. The player and the casino reached a mutual agreement and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Russia won a significant multiplier tournament in the casino but afterwards, the casino blocked his account even though it was fully verified and had previous successful withdrawals. The casino has provided us with evidence of abusive gameplay strategies therefore, we have rejected the complaint.

The player from the United States attempted to deposit funds using BNB into his LuckyBlock account, but the funds have not appeared in the account. The casino stated that due to incomplete information provided when the deposit was made, it had been misplaced. The casino had recovered the funds, but charged the player a 10% fee for this. After some discussion, the casino offered to refund part of the fee to the player. the player agreed, but then stopped responding to the complaint. Without confirmation that the matter had been resolved, the complaint was eventually rejected.

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

The player from Germany demands a refund of all deposits due to the casino's lack of a valid license for online roulette, which he considers as deceptive. Player's withdrawals were denied due to player opening multiple accounts in the casino. We closed the complaint becasue the player didn't reply to our questions and messages.

The player made three deposits totaling approximately $340. When they tried to withdraw $600, they were asked for verification documents. Despite providing the documents to four different email addresses, they received no response. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.