MyStake Casino Review

The player from Armenia tried to withdraw 7007 EUR from MyStake Casino, but the casino confiscated most of her winnings, citing a violation of their Terms and Conditions related to IP address usage. Despite successful verification, no evidence of her violation was provided. The player insists that she did not break any rules and requests the return of her winnings.

The player from Sweden won a sports bet of 1350€, but after nearly 5 days, the bank transfer has not been received despite the casino's assurance of 0-3 days for processing. The website indicates 'success,' but no funds have arrived.

The player from the United Kingdom had her account closed after verifying and attempting to withdraw £1600 in winnings. Despite being told all funds were withdrawn, she only received £50, with the remaining winnings confiscated. She claims she played only with deposited money and no bonus.

The player from the United Kingdom made a deposit via bank transfer on June 30, but the funds have not been credited to her account. Despite contacting both MyStake and Payop, the issue remains unresolved, leaving the player feeling that her money is lost.

The player from Bulgaria received account closure and rejected withdrawal requests due to IBAN verification issues. Despite providing the necessary documentation and explanations, the casino banned the player from live chat and blocked the account, preventing further withdrawals.

The player from the UK had an account with mystake, made several deposits and withdrawals, and then found the account closed. Despite support initially stating the £1600 withdrawal was processing, they later claimed a £2000 withdrawal was processed, which the player disputes.

The player from Argentina faced an issue where their last three deposits, totaling 53,312 Argentine pesos, were not reflected in their casino account for more than 24 hours. We requested additional information and proof of transactions from the player to investigate the issue. Due to the lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected, and no further investigation or resolution was provided.

The player from the United Kingdom previously closed an account with MyStake due to a gambling addiction. After a relapse, he opened a new account using different email address but same details. The casino states there is little they can do.

The player from Bolivia had a withdrawal rejected and now cannot deposit or play, although he can log into his account and see the funds. Despite contacting the casino multiple times, he is consistently told that his account is under investigation, and the issue has lasted for 2.5 months.

The player from Spain encountered a verification issue with a card he had never used after trying to withdraw funds from his casino account. Despite providing evidence to Mystake support that the card ending in 19 was not his, the casino repeatedly requested verification for this card, causing a deadlock. The player later identified the card as his but faced further issues verifying deposits made with it. The casino insisted on verifying all payment methods used. The player failed to respond to further inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Italy was unable to withdraw 50 euros in winnings because their account verification process kept rejecting their ID card. The player faced issues with verifying their address, as utility bills were in their father's name, and the casino required documents in the player's name. Despite attempts to contact the casino's KYC team via email, the player received no response. The case was ultimately rejected by the Complaints Team due to the player's lack of further communication.

The player from Argentina attempted to deposit 4,000 via MercadoPago to the MyStake platform's provided alias but hasn't seen the amount credited to their account after 6 hours and 33 minutes. They are concerned as the contact button on the page doesn't work.

The player from the United Kingdom has been unable to withdraw his balance from MyStake and sister casinos for the past month. Despite being fully verified, account withdrawals are blocked due to an ongoing investigation with no progress.

The player from Russia withdrew $393 from MyStake, but the money did not arrive in his Bybit wallet. The bookmaker deducted $493 from his account, leaving a balance of $400. Support refuses to return the missing funds.

A player from the United Kingdom had deposited over a thousand pounds within three days and lost all of it, suspecting the games were rigged due to repetitive spin sequences and frequent losses. The player requested a refund of £1,000. We explained that without evidence, such as game history or screenshots, we could not investigate the claim. The complaint was closed due to the lack of provided evidence.

The player from Argentina had deposited via Mercado Pago, but after more than 30 hours, the deposit had not been credited or appeared in transactions. The Complaints Team had advised the player to contact the payment provider for an investigation, as the casino could not resolve the issue directly. The player did not respond to follow-up messages, leading the Complaints Team to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Italy faced issues with depositing money to the casino as they were asked for a bank statement. The player used a Postepay Evolution card and provided both the card's IBAN and Banco Posta IBAN, but the issue remained unresolved. We contacted the casino to clarify the verification process. The casino confirmed that the player had already successfully withdrawn the winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had her Mystake account locked after depositing £35, allegedly due to violating terms related to a second account. She clarified that the previous account had been closed due to problem gambling. Despite depositing an additional £22 to meet the minimum withdrawal limit, she faced further issues and was unable to withdraw via bank transfer. We attempted to gather more information from the player but received no response, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from Spain had initially verified her account and was assured by live support that it was fully verified. However, her withdrawal request for 6000 euros was rejected, requiring additional verification via a video where she wrote and pronounced instructions in English. This delayed her access to her funds. The issue was resolved as the player managed to withdraw her money successfully, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved.

The player from Australia had signed up to MyStake with a misspelled email and contacted the KYC team to correct it. Despite providing all necessary information, the casino suspended the account due to a Terms violation and insisted on communication from the registered email. The player was seeking assistance in correcting this issue to fulfill KYC requirements if the withdrawal attempt failed. We attempted to gather more information from the player but received no response, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to insufficient details.

The player from the UK had winnings of GBP 3,000 confiscated by Mystake, who cited the use of a second account. Despite depositing GBP 4,200, the player was only allowed to withdraw GBP 1,000. The player argued that the casino failed to block the second account after closing the first for gambling addiction and sought a refund of the remaining GBP 3,200 in deposits. We were unable to assist further as the player did not save the initial self-exclusion request, which was essential evidence for proceeding with the case.

The player from the UK had experienced high wagering requirements and completed them but received no prize, leading to financial strain. The player requested a full refund. We could not investigate further due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Argentina deposited 2200, but the funds never appeared in her casino account, and she was disconnected from her virtual wallet. We informed the player that the issue needed to be investigated by the payment provider, which could take approximately one month. The player did not respond to our messages, so the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from Austria, who had previously made successful deposits and withdrawals, experienced a delay in the verification process with Mystake.com. This occurred after they complied with instructions for video verification intended to facilitate a withdrawal of 4400 euros but had yet to receive confirmation since May 21, 2024. We advised the player to wait for the standard 14-day verification period. The issue was successfully resolved when the player received confirmation of successful verification and withdrawal authorization.

The player from Argentina made a deposit transfer that wasn't credited to his casino account despite receiving a confirmation email from his virtual wallet. We recommended that he contact his payment provider to investigate further, explaining that the process could take approximately one month. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved as the transfer amount was credited to his account. The complaint was marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Spain had struggled to withdraw winnings due to an issue with card verification. Despite providing proof for the single card used for deposits, the casino requested verification for two additional cards that the player didn't recognize. The player suspected unauthorized access to his account as the reason for these unrecognized transactions. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, the complaint was rejected by us.

The player from the United Kingdom, who suffered from severe gambling addiction, had initially self-excluded from Mystake.com for 5 years. However, he managed to create a new account, depositing and losing additional funds. Despite reaching out to Mystake.com, his second account was not blocked, and he was not prevented from depositing money. It was concluded that the self-exclusion request was not properly communicated as it did not mention gambling addiction, resulting in the account being closed instead of self-excluded. Therefore, the deposits made on the new account were deemed non-refundable, and the complaint was rejected.

The player was issued a €39 Cashback bonus via Livechat after making numerous deposits. He was informed about the wagering requirements, however, the livechat agent omitted information about the max cashout. The player won €12.500 but it got limited to 5x the bonus amount. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to contact the the casino there was no reaction, and the complaint remained unresolved.

A player from the UK had an account with this casino 18 months ago, which was closed on Player's request. In 2023, he opened a new account, thinking he had only one active account, and deposited around 600-700 GBP. His account had been fully verified. He complained that after requesting withdrawal of 1.500 GBP, the Casino removed this amount from his balance and left only their last deposit, due to duplicated accounts. The player wanted to get at least all his deposits back, however, the casino refunded only part of it and informed the mediator that they would not cooperate in resolving this complaint.

The player from Argentina deposited funds into Mystake Casino last Thursday, but the money did not show up in the account. The player was frustrated with the delay and the casino's lack of responsibility, raising suspicions of fraud. We advised the player to contact his payment provider to investigate the location of the funds, which could take up to one month. Despite multiple follow-ups, the player did not respond, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from Argentina had deposited $2200 into his mystake account, but the funds hadn't arrived after two hours. He demanded that the deposit be finalized. We informed him that the issue had to be resolved with the payment provider, as the casino could not intervene. The player failed to respond to our messages, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to a lack of communication.

The UK-based player, who had a registered gambling problem, permanently self-excluded from MyStake casino. Despite this, the casino reopened the player's self-excluded account upon request, which led the player to deposit more funds. The player sought a refund for all transactions made after the account was reopened. We were unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, resulting in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Argentina made a deposit that was not reflected in his casino account. He sought either a deposit or a refund. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for investigation. The player later confirmed that the deposit had been credited to his account. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had his account at MyStake placed under investigation when he tried to withdraw €2100. The casino did not disclose a specific reason for the investigation and advised the player to wait for an email update. The investigation revealed a technical glitch that resulted in duplicated winnings, reducing the player's balance to €311. Despite the player's frustration, the casino provided game logs confirming the error. Due to the clear evidence of a technical issue, the complaint was rejected by us.

The player from Italy, after several successful deposits and withdrawals, had been asked for a video verification. After completing this step and making a substantial withdrawal, the casino allegedly refused to process the withdrawal of the remaining €2900. The player claimed that the winnings originated from sports betting Due to the nature of the complaint we had to reject this complaint. We had recommended the player seek help from services specializing in sports-betting issues.

The player from Argentina deposited 3500 pesos via Mercado Pago, but the funds didn't appear in the casino account. We advised the player to contact the payment provider for investigation, as the casino was unable to resolve this issue directly. Despite extending the response time by seven days, the player did not reply. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Argentina was facing issues with multiple deposits totalling eleven thousand pesos. She had initially made a deposit from a different account and then from her own. This was a recurring problem and she threatened to publicize her issue. She had been informed by the Complaints Team that if a third-party payment was used, the owner of the payment method could request a refund. However, since she breached the casino terms, the complaint had been closed.

The player from the United Kingdom had been unable to withdraw his winnings of £1500 from Mystake casino. The casino had rejected the withdrawal and reportedly removed £1169 from his account, claiming that he had broken some rules, although the player denied any wrongdoing. The player had stated that he had complied with all the casino's verification requests. However, the casino had accused him of having a duplicate account, which he denied. The player had become frustrated with the process, used offensive language, and explicitly requested to close the complaint. As a result, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from Spain had reported that their underage child had opened an account with an online casino and made a deposit without their knowledge. The casino had blocked the account and retained the funds upon discovering that the account was created by a minor, which was a breach of their Terms & Conditions. The player had requested a refund, arguing that the account created by a minor should be considered void. The player also raised concerns about the legality of the casino's operation in Spain without a license, and the lack of transparency about their policies. We had concluded that the player should contact the casino's licensing authority for further assistance, as it wasn't the casino's fault that the minor claimed to be 18 and used the player's card. The complaint was closed.

The player from Azerbaijan had won money and requested a withdrawal. He submitted the necessary documents for verification, but after waiting over two days, he had not received a response. He suspected his account was being intentionally left unverified. After discussing the issue with the Complaints Team, the player provided additional evidence and the case was forwarded to the casino. The casino confirmed that the verification process had been successful and the player had withdrawn his winnings. Despite the player's dissatisfaction with the two-week wait for confirmation, the issue had been resolved and the player received his funds.

The player from the United Kingdom suffered from gambling addiction and had initially requested to close his account. After reopening his account, he experienced a relapse which caused loss of funds and mental distress. The casino had already refunded some money, and the player was requesting the refund of 4500 euros from another account with the same details which was not blacklisted as it should have been. The player provided all necessary information to the complaints team, who then requested additional information from the casino. Despite some delays in communication, the issue was eventually resolved directly between the player and the casino. The casino confirmed the resolution and no further action was required.

The player from Ukraine had requested a withdrawal of $1000 that had been rejected. The casino had also removed her ability to make further withdrawals, with the justification that her account was under review. The player had claimed that she had passed all necessary KYC verifications and her winnings were not tied to any bonus. The casino had stated that the player's account was under investigation due to suspicious sports betting activity. We had received evidence from the casino indicating that the issue primarily pertained to sports betting. As our team did not have the expertise to handle sports betting-related complaints, we were unable to assist the player further and had to reject her complaint. We had advised the player to seek assistance from platforms that specialize in sports betting disputes.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a permanent account closure, but the casino had allowed him to reopen the account and continue depositing large sums. The player had expressed dissatisfaction about the casino's handling in terms of responsible gambling. We had reviewed the forwarded communication and found that the player had not specified a gambling issue when requesting account closure, which had led the casino to reopen the account. The casino had blocked the account again upon receiving the player's complaint. Due to a lack of evidence supporting the player's claim, we were compelled to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Argentina was experiencing difficulties with depositing funds at an online casino. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino could not assist in this matter. They also recommended that the player refrained from making additional deposits until the issue was resolved. However, due to the player's lack of response to the team's inquiries, the complaint was eventually rejected. The team was unable to further investigate or propose potential solutions without the player's cooperation.

The player from Argentina had experienced an issue with a withdrawal request that was still 'in process'. Despite her previous withdrawals being successful within an hour, her current withdrawal of 80,000 remained unresolved. Additionally, she had reported a deposit of $4000 not being credited to her casino account, despite later deposits being successful. The casino had stated they were evaluating the case but had not provided any updates. We had requested further information from the player, including a screenshot of her transaction history, but received no response. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom was dissatisfied with the bonus rules at MyStake Casino. Despite having met the wagering requirements, his winnings of £2000 were reduced to £200, which he considered unfair. He claimed his account had been fully verified since January and the balance was not capped after wagering. However, the casino rejected his withdrawal request of £2000 after two hours. The player questioned the fairness of the casino's policy of limiting winnings to 5x the bonus amount. We asked for further details to investigate the matter, but the player did not respond, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland had self-excluded due to gambling problems and closed his account, but had an issue with the casino confiscating his winnings and charging a 20% transaction fee on his deposits. The player had claimed that he had a balance to play with when he decided to self-exclude and close his account. The casino representative had claimed that the player was detected in bonus hunting and had crossed the IP address with another user who also used the same bonus. The player had disputed this, citing the small size of IP pools in Ireland. We had found that the player's account and the other account in question were identical not only in IP address, but also in browser type and operating system. Therefore, we had concluded that the accounts were definitely connected and rejected the complaint.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit of 15986 Argentine pesos, which was deducted from her Mercado Pago account but was not reflected in the Mystake casino account. We suggested that she contact her payment provider to investigate the issue. The player informed us that her deposited funds had been successfully credited to her casino account. Thus, we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Argentina had encountered a problem with depositing 10100 pesos in two installments into his casino account. Despite having submitted a complaint via email, no response had been received. The player confirmed that the payment provider had processed the payments, implying the issue lay with the casino. We had advised the player to check if his deposit was credited to his casino account or returned to his bank account. However, due to the player's lack of response to our follow-up messages, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported a problem with MyStake Casino. However, the player did not provide specific details about the issue. Despite our team's attempts to gather more information, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, due to the lack of response and details, we were unable to investigate the matter further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the UK was unable to withdraw their winnings from MyStake due to repeated error messages regarding the use of his provided IBAN codes. Despite trying different codes and contacting customer service, the issue persisted and their requests for suggested English banks were ignored. We had asked for additional information from the player and the casino. The casino claimed that the player had never requested a withdrawal, however, the player failed to respond to our messages and provide any proof of the attempted withdrawals. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the UK had experienced problems withdrawing his winnings. Despite having had a fully verified account and a prior successful withdrawal, his subsequent attempts via bank transfer had been declined, and he had been asked to provide card details. The player had expressed frustration with the casino's request for additional verification and decided to close his account. Since no new information was provided, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had deposited a total of 4900 euros and had won 13,900 euros. However, when he attempted to withdraw his winnings, the casino accused him of possessing multiple open accounts. The player had claimed that these accounts were unverified and had no transactions. The casino had closed his account and refunded only his last deposit of 900 euros, confiscating the rest of his winnings. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our queries. Therefore, we could not proceed with the investigation and were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had self-exclusion and neurological issues, had been able to open and wager on multiple accounts at the casino using the same personal information but different emails. The player had sought a refund of deposits, feeling unprotected by the casino. The player had confirmed that all personal information was the same across accounts, except for the email addresses. However, the player did not respond to further inquiries from the complaints team. As a result, we had been unable to investigate further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had opened and made deposits to Mystake casino after his account at goldenbet, both owned by Santeda International B.V., was closed due to gambling problems. He had been allowed to deposit at Mystake and was then seeking a refund of £720. Mystake had responded by stating they operated independently. We had clarified to the player that self-exclusion at one casino didn't necessarily apply to all associated websites. The player's request for self-exclusion at Mystake was made after the deposits. The lack of response from the player had led us to reject the complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from Spain had won €50 and had faced difficulties verifying his address for withdrawal, as all his attempts had been blocked. He had proposed a change in the verification process. After he had provided the front and back of his card with certain details, he had awaited a response regarding the withdrawal. The issue had eventually been resolved, with the player confirming everything had been settled.

The player from Spain had faced an issue with MyStake Casino when his account was blocked after he attempted to withdraw his winnings of 123€. The casino had requested identification documents and proof of his home address for verification. Although the player had provided the required documents, he was unable to verify his address, resulting in the account remaining blocked. The player had claimed to have exceeded the document submission limit as none of his address proofs were validated, and had been waiting for a response for 2 days. Despite our efforts to reach out and extend the timer for a response, we did not receive any further communication from the player. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. The player had reported that the casino rejected their withdrawal request. We had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We extended the timer for response by 7 days, but the player did not respond to our messages. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom won £4000 at the casino but ran into issues when trying to withdraw £3700. After verification, the withdrawal was pending for three days but was then mysteriously transferred to another account. The casino blamed security issues and bonus hunting for closing the player's account and withholding her winnings. The player claimed she was not bonus hunting and requested help to retrieve her money. We reviewed the provided information and concluded that the withdrawal request had been made from the player's device, and the casino had operated according to its terms and conditions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Argentina was experiencing difficulties with depositing money into the casino via Mercado Pago, as the credits were not appearing in his account. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation, which might have taken approximately a month. We also recommended that he refrain from depositing more funds until the issue was resolved. However, the player did not respond to our queries and messages, hence we could not proceed with the investigation. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced a withdrawal delay. After verifying his account two months prior, the casino claimed to have processed the withdrawal and sent a receipt, but the funds never reached his bank. Despite him providing bank statements to prove this, the situation remained unresolved. We had attempted to mediate the issue by communicating with both the player and the casino. However, the player failed to respond to our messages, resulting in the rejection of the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from the United Kingdom had attempted to withdraw £660 in winnings from an online casino, but only £560 had been successfully withdrawn, and the casino was offering only £100. The player had confirmed that he had accumulated his winnings without any active bonuses while playing virtual sports. Despite the player being fully verified, we were unable to assist with his complaint as it pertained to sports betting, an area outside our jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from the UK, who had signed up for Gamstop previously due to a gambling issue, found MyStake.com through an advertisement. Despite Gamstop restrictions, he was able to sign up and lost £3k, which caused him significant emotional distress. He also described the casino's team as being rude and unresponsive. The player argued that the casino had been advertising on 'Not Gamstop', specifically targeting UK-based individuals with gambling issues, which he considered to be illegal and unethical. However, we clarified that we couldn't handle complaints related to advertisements or country-specific legal regulations, and our role was to mediate in player disputes. The player did not provide further information to assist in resolving the dispute, which led us to close the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported that he had deposited 10,000ARS to the Mystake casino, but the amount was not credited to his account. The casino had claimed that the balance was credited and already spent, but there was no supporting evidence in the transaction history. After the Complaints Team had intervened and asked for more information, the player confirmed that the balance had eventually been deposited. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the team.

The player from Argentina had deposited 14 thousand pesos into his casino, but the money had not been credited yet, even though it had been deducted from his bank account. The casino's support team was investigating the issue at that time. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation, as these situations could take up to a month to resolve. We had also suggested that he refrain from depositing any more funds until the issue was resolved. The complaint had been left open for a month, but due to the player's lack of response, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had mistakenly deposited money without proper context or link and the funds had been lost in the process, however, the casino's support had been unhelpful in resolving the issue. The player had been advised by us to contact their bank to investigate the matter as it was beyond the casino's control. The player did so and also contacted the casino again with evidence of the deposit. The casino had then credited the funds to the player's account. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Argentina had deposited 25,000 using Mercado Pago, which wasn't reflected in his online casino account, despite the amount having been deducted from his bank. Hours after the player had submitted his complaint to us, the deposit was credited to his casino account The issue was then marked as resolved.

The player from the UK had their account at MyStake Casino indefinitely closed without a clear reason. Despite having had a balance of over £1,220, they were only allowed to withdraw £200, and £1,020 was removed from their account. The player claimed that he had closed his previous account and reopened a new one, which the casino had allegedly allowed him to do. However, the casino's terms and conditions clearly stated that each player was allowed only one account. The casino confirmed that the player's balance was deducted due to him having a duplicate account, which was against their rules. They made an exception and allowed the player to withdraw his last deposit. We reviewed all the provided information and evidence and found no irregularities. The player's claim of being allowed to create multiple accounts was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, we had to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Italy had tried to verify his account, but encountered issues with constant loading of his data fields for document and residence address. He had also mistakenly entered incorrect address information during registration. However, the issue had been successfully resolved as the casino verified his account and automatically updated his address. The player had confirmed the resolution of his issue.

The player from the United Kingdom claimed that the casino had allowed betting despite his self-exclusion from other casinos under the same group. He was then seeking access to his transaction history. The Complaints Team had asked for additional information to better understand the situation, but the player failed to respond within the given time frame. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

An Argentinian player had experienced problems with his account at Mu Stake casino where all the accumulated balance had been emptied. He had been blocked from depositing or playing games and his emails to support had gone unanswered. The player's account had been verified for months, and despite being able to deposit and play games, the money that was absorbed had not been refunded. The casino had justified their actions by stating the player made insistent deposits. However, the player disputed this, stating that a deposit had been made to his account without his knowledge. We attempted to gather more information from the player to further investigate the issue, but the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, the complaint had been rejected due to lack of player's cooperation.

The player from Argentina had transferred 12,000 pesos to his account at an online casino, but the funds had not appeared in his account yet. The player had already confirmed the successful transfer with his bank, and had provided proof to the casino. We had advised the player to wait for the transaction to be located, which could have taken up to 1-3 weeks. Eventually, the player confirmed that the funds had been credited to his casino account. We then marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Italy had experienced difficulties with the verification process at an online casino after using a friend's card for deposits. The casino had requested card verification, but the friend's name was not on the card and the bank statement only showed the account number, not the full card number. Despite all other documents being accepted, the player's account could have been blocked due to this issue. The player was concerned about losing €550. We had explained that using a third-party deposit was forbidden in all online casinos and that any winnings generated from such a deposit would likely be confiscated. We also informed the player that the casino had the right to permanently close their account. The player asked if there was a way to withdraw the money, but we clarified that it was up to the casino to decide on any payouts or refunds. We concluded the complaint due to the breach of the casino's terms and conditions by the player.

The player from Argentina was facing issues with Mystake Casino, unable to withdraw his funds or place any bets. The problem started when he tried to verify his account and withdraw $15,000, which was left processing indefinitely. Despite his attempts to contact the casino about this issue, he received no response. His account showed a total balance of $20,243, made up of both deposits and winnings, but he was unable to access these funds. The Complaints Team attempted to investigate the issue, but due to the player's lack of response to their inquiries, they were unable to proceed and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had an issue where her deposit to the casino never arrived in her account. We advised her to contact her payment provider to investigate the issue as the casino usually had limited control over such matters. Despite extending the complaint response time by 7 days, we received no response from the player. Hence, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had been waiting for a withdrawal of $140000 Argentine pesos since the 13th of March and had received no information about the delay from the casino. The player had previously verified his account and had successfully withdrawn smaller amounts. After 14 days of waiting and no response from the casino, the player contacted us for assistance. We intervened by contacting the casino on the player's behalf. The casino apologized for the inconvenience and re-credited the funds to the player's account, allowing him to successfully withdraw them. The issue was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited £3000 to Mystake via SEPA. However, after more than 24 hours, the funds had not been credited to her casino account. We had advised her to contact her payment provider to investigate the issue, as it typically took approximately one month to resolve such matters. The casino's ability to intervene was limited in this case. Despite extending the response deadline by 7 days, the player did not respond to our messages or questions. Therefore, we could not investigate further and were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported a deposit issue with an online casino. Despite the money having been deducted from his virtual wallet, it hadn't been credited to his casino account. We had suggested the player contact his payment provider, Mercado Pago, for investigation. The player had insisted the issue wasn't on his end and provided proof of the transaction. We had advised him to forward this evidence to the casino's support and wait for the funds to be located. However, the player failed to respond further, which prevented us from continuing the investigation. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

An Italian player had issues uploading verification documents to her new My Stake account because they were registered with a previously closed account. Despite multiple emails, she hadn't been able to resolve this issue. We attempted to gather more details about her old and new account, including the reasons for creating a new one, deposit details, and current balance. However, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited money into the casino four days ago, but the funds hadn't been reflected in his casino account despite having left his bank. The player had provided evidence and had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's response. We suggested that the player contact his payment provider to investigate the issue. Later, the player confirmed that the money had been credited to his casino account. We marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Argentina had attempted to deposit 2200 Argentine pesos twice but they were not credited to his account. He claimed that his bank had confirmed the transfers were successful. Despite the Complaints Team's efforts to assist by requesting further communication between the player and his bank, the player did not respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported that he was unable to see the 2200 ARS deposit made to his casino account. We had advised him to contact his payment provider for an investigation and suggested not to deposit any more funds until the issue was resolved. We had extended the complaint's time frame to allow for a full month of investigation. The player had mentioned a possible transfer to Papagos SA but did not provide further information or communication records with the casino. Due to lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. They also extended the timer for response by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, the complaint couldn't be investigated further and was subsequently rejected.

The player from Argentina had experienced difficulties with depositing money into the casino as he had used a third-party account. Although his account had been verified for over a year, the deposited balance never arrived. We had informed him that using a third-party account was against casino terms and could result in account blocking. The original account owner could have requested a refund, but there wasn't much that could have been done from our or the player's side. The player failed to respond to further communication, leading us to reject the complaint due to insufficient information.

An Argentinian player had made two transfers worth $15,000 each through Mercado Pago to Stake, which were not credited in the app. Despite the player having made several claims and provided proofs of the transfers, no resolution had been presented. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider and to refrain from depositing more funds until the issue was resolved. However, the player did not respond to our follow-up messages and therefore, we were unable to further investigate the issue. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit of $2,200 which was not credited to her casino account, yet it had been deducted from her digital wallet. We had advised her to contact her payment provider for investigation. Since the player did not respond to our follow-up messages, we had to reject the case due to lack of communication. The issue remained unresolved due to the player's inactivity.

The player from Argentina had encountered an issue where his deposit was not acknowledged by the casino. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider for investigation and to refrain from making any more deposits until the issue was resolved. Despite extending the response period, the player failed to respond to the team's messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of communication from the player.

The player from the United Kingdom had been trying for three days to withdraw their winnings, but the casino kept asking them to change the IBAN. However, they couldn't do so as this was the only number they had from their bank. We attempted to assist the player and provided guidance on possible reasons for the withdrawal delay such as unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We also extended the complaint response time by 7 days. However, due to lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported not receiving her deposit at Mystake Casino after four days. We had advised her to contact her payment provider for an investigation, as the casino could not assist in such cases. We had also recommended that she refrained from depositing more funds until the issue was resolved. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries for further information, leading us to reject the complaint due to a lack of response.

The player from Poland had completed the required account and video verifications. However, the casino had blocked his $1565 withdrawal and had been unresponsive for over 5 days. The player reported that the casino had kept telling him to wait without providing a clear timeframe. He also clarified that he hadn't used any bonuses and that his winnings were from sports betting. As we didn't have enough insight into issues related to sports betting, we recommended other websites that might have been able to help him. The complaint was rejected due to our inability to assist with sports betting-related issues.

An Argentinian player had complained about a delay in depositing money into their casino account. The player had claimed to have contacted their payment provider, Mercado Pago, and was told the money had arrived at the casino. The Complaints Team had asked the player to provide additional evidence, including screenshots of the deposit receipt and deposit history, as well as communication with the payment provider. However, the player failed to respond within the given time frame, which resulted in the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Indonesia had reported a delay in his withdrawal process, despite having completed a video verification on 02/21/2024 and receiving no clear timeline from the casino. After the Complaints Team had intervened and clarified the importance of the KYC process, the player confirmed that he didn't need to provide any additional documents for verification. Following communication with the casino, the player informed the team that he had received his withdrawal. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Argentina had deposited money into her Mystake casino account, but the funds had not shown up. Despite having reached out to Mystake's chat support, she was only advised to wait. We had suggested that she contact her payment provider for an investigation, as the casino could not assist in this case. We had extended the response time by 7 days, but the player did not respond, hence we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Spain was struggling to verify his residence to an online casino as he lived with relatives and didn't have any bills in his name. Despite providing current documents, his residency was not confirmed. The player had been trying to verify his account for about 3 days and had already verified his identity and email. However, the casino rejected his proof of residency documents. We asked the player for further details and to provide the communication between him and the casino, but the player did not respond. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had deposited money through Mercado Pago to the casino, but the deposit hadn't appeared in his casino account. He had sought help from the casino's support team but to no avail. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation and to halt further deposits until the issue was resolved. Despite our efforts to assist, the player hadn't responded to our messages, leading us to close the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from the US had deposited $8 using Dogecoin which was not reflected in their MyStake account and questioned the delay. We had advised the player to contact their payment provider for an investigation and asked several questions to better understand the situation. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was consequently rejected, but could be reopened if the player decided to communicate further.

The player from Argentina had deposited money into an online casino four days prior, but the amount had not been credited to his account. Upon his raising the issue, we had recommended that he contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino typically had limited control over such matters. He later confirmed that his bank had transferred the funds. Despite efforts to follow up on the status of his deposit, the player failed to respond, which led us to close the complaint. The resolution was hindered by the player's lack of communication.

The player from Argentina had made four deposits to her casino account, but these were never reflected. She had demanded a resolution in the form of the deposits being credited or rectified. We had advised her to contact her payment provider to investigate the issue, as it might have taken approximately one month. The player failed to respond to our messages and questions, leading us to reject the complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit of $3000 using Mercado Pago over 72 hours prior. Despite the payment having been successful on the payment app, the funds had not reached his casino account. We had recommended the player to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, noting that this process could take approximately a month. We had left the complaint open for a month for updates. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had deposited to his casino account, but it was not credited. Despite lodging a complaint and providing a receipt, there had been no response from the casino. The player had not seen any progress even after four days of investigation. We had suggested the player contact his payment provider and provide us with the proof of deposit and bank statements. However, despite extending the deadline by seven days, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Argentina had requested a withdrawal to his MercadoPago account but discovered the transaction was rejected and another transaction under the name LITECOIN was approved instead. He had not received any information or response about where the funds had been sent. The player claimed he hadn't made the Litecoin transaction, and the funds were not sent to his verified Litecoin wallet. The casino had provided transaction details, which didn't match the player's Litecoin address. Further investigation had shown that the player's account was accessed via a VPN, including at the time of the disputed withdrawal. The casino argued that they had every reason to believe the withdrawal was initiated by the player, as the account was accessed with correct user credentials. As a result, the complaint had been rejected due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the casino.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. His money hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processes might take some time, possibly due to KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had suggested the player wait for at least 14 days before raising a complaint. However, the player failed to respond to the follow-up messages, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced issues with several withdrawal rejections and a missing amount of £751 that did not return to his account as claimed by the casino. The player had provided transaction proof and had been in constant communication with the casino. After a thorough review of the case and discussion with the casino, the player had realized a misunderstanding in his transactions. He had acknowledged his mistake and requested to cancel the complaint. The complaint was therefore rejected due to the player's misunderstanding of his transaction history.

The player from Spain had experienced difficulties depositing money due to limited bank verification options and issues with residential verification, as she lived with her parents and lacked utility bills or documents proving ownership. After communicating with our team, the player had been able to resolve the issue and successfully deposit money. The player had expressed gratitude for the help received, and we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the UK had an issue with the account verification process at MyStake Casino. Despite successfully completing two stages, his proof of identity was not accepted. He attempted to communicate with the casino via email but received no response. The Complaints Team extended the timer for his response by 7 days, but the player did not respond. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information from the player.

The player from Morocco, who had been previously blocked from Mystake, had difficulty verifying a new account due to identity data saved from the old one. Despite multiple attempts at communication with the casino and providing necessary documents, the player received no response. We had attempted to assist by asking for more information about the closure of the first account and the creation of the new one. However, the player did not respond within the extended time frame, hence we had no choice but to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Belgium had experienced difficulties withdrawing a deposit of 500 euros from Mystake. After his initial deposit, his account had been blocked due to a declared gambling addiction. The player had reported that the casino and payment provider were unresponsive to his inquiries. The casino reviewed the case and allowed the player to withdraw his funds without any administrative fee. The player had successfully received his deposit. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Argentina had made a deposit, but the amount had been deducted and not credited to his casino account. Despite having used the same deposit method previously without any issue, this time the transaction did not go through as expected. The player had contacted his payment provider, MercadoPago, and confirmed the transaction was approved on their end. The Complaints Team had asked for additional documentation, including a screenshot of the deposit receipt and deposit history, along with communication with the bank and the casino. However, the player had not responded to these requests. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint due to the lack of further information from the player.

The player from Pennsylvania had used a bonus and had successfully met the wagering requirements, which supposedly allowed a withdrawal of up to $350. The player had continued betting and won $3000 but the casino only allowed a withdrawal of $350, referring back to the initial bonus rules. The player had argued that he should have been allowed to withdraw the full amount as he had completed the wagering requirements and the additional winnings were made after this. The casino's position was that the maximum withdrawal limit still applied as the winnings were made using the bonus. The Complaints Team had tried to mediate the situation, but the casino did not agree to pay the full amount. The casino later updated their terms and conditions to clarify their rules regarding bonus winnings, but they did not retroactively apply these changes to the player's case. Therefore, the issue remained unresolved.

The player from Argentina had reported an issue where his deposit had not been reflected in his casino account. We had advised him to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino could not intervene in this matter. We had also requested additional information to help resolve the issue. However, the player did not respond to our messages and inquiries. As a result, we had been unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had reported that his last two withdrawals had not been deposited into his account despite appearing as successful in the transaction history. He had also claimed that the casino's customer service had not responded to his inquiries for a week. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days for the withdrawal process to complete, as delays could occur due to reasons such as pending KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. However, the player did not respond to our messages, thus we were unable to further investigate his issue. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

An Italian player had made two deposits totaling 1000 euros via SEPA bank transfer and the funds had been deducted from their bank account but were not reflecting in their casino account. The player had attempted to resolve this through the casino's customer service with no result. We had suggested the player to contact their payment provider for further investigation, as the casino could not directly intervene in this matter. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK had cashed out a total of £5940 but hadn't received the funds after two days. The casino had assured him that they had sent the money, but his bank couldn't confirm any incoming payments. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days. Later, the player confirmed that the payment had reached his bank and requested to cancel the complaint. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The player had confirmed that his account was fully verified and both his withdrawal requests had been processed by the casino, but he had not received the funds. Despite our attempts to get more information and extend the complaint resolution time frame, the player did not respond. Therefore, we were unable to investigate the matter further and the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Argentina had a locked casino account with a significant amount of money in it, and was seeking assistance. The player's account got blocked when he attempted to withdraw his winnings from playing the slot machine game, Money Train 2. The casino advised him to change his password and then contact them for password verification to enable withdrawal. However, the player had not yet received a response from the casino. We requested further communication from the player to assist in the investigation, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player alleged that the casino had closed his account and confiscated his winnings of £26,000. The casino claimed the player had duplicate accounts, which was a violation of their terms and conditions. The Complaints Team had requested supporting evidence from the casino. The player denied having duplicate accounts and suggested that the casino's accusations only arose after he won a significant amount of money. The case was further complicated by the player's alleged past chargeback. The Complaints Team had extended the complaint's deadline, but the player had not responded, leading to the complaint's rejection.

The player from the United States had fully verified their account, including providing selfies and card photos, only to find their account had been blocked when they tried to withdraw. The casino had also stated that the account would never be reopened with the current funds in it. The player had been unable to provide any previous communication with the casino regarding the account block. He had claimed to have €12,909 in his account at the time of the block. The player had also been banned from the casino's live chat. We had attempted to gather further information, however, since the player's activities were related to sports betting, outside of our jurisdiction, we had been unable to resolve the issue.

The player from Argentina had deposited 2300 pesos into a casino on the 3rd of February via Mercado Pago. He reported that the money had been deducted from his account but was not credited to his casino account. We had suggested that he contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the process could have taken approximately one month and the casino could not assist in this matter. We had left the complaint open for a month and extended the timer by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our messages or questions, leading us to reject the complaint due to a lack of further information.

The player from Argentina had reported a problem with his deposit of $20000 pesos to Mystake casino. The deposit had not been credited to his account, and the casino's support had not responded to his inquiries. We had advised him to contact his payment provider for an investigation. However, the player did not respond to our follow-up messages, which hindered further investigation. As a result, the complaint had been rejected due to the lack of necessary information from the player.

The player from the UK had his account closed by MyStake following a self-exclusion request. He then created a new account and won £1200. However, when he tried to withdraw his winnings, he was informed that his ID was linked to another account. He was awaiting a response. We had reviewed the case the player had not explicitly stated he had lost control over his gambling. We explained that opening multiple accounts was prohibited and could lead to withdrawal issues. We recommended that the player contact the casino and reiterate his wish to be protected from gambling due to a gambling problem. The player accepted the situation and expressed gratitude for our efforts. The complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Argentina had deposited the minimum amount of money as specified, but it had not been credited to his casino account, despite being deducted from his virtual wallet. We had suggested him to contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino usually could not intervene in such cases. However, the player failed to respond to our further communication, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation.

The player from Argentina had deposited $10,000 to MyStake via her husband's LEMON virtual wallet, but the funds were not credited to her account. She had requested for the funds to be either credited or refunded. It was revealed that the player had used her husband's account, which was a violation of the casino's rules. We had advised her to refrain from using third-party payment methods and that her husband should have requested a refund once the funds were credited. However, due to the violation, we were unable to assist further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Belgium had won nearly 10,000 euros at the casino but had faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to repetitive documentation requests from the casino. Despite having sent all requested documents, he felt that the casino had been intentionally delaying the withdrawal process. As the player had used his winnings, the team concluded there was not much they could do to assist further.

The player from the United Kingdom claimed that the casino games seemed rigged, estimating the Return to Player (RTP) to be only about 3%, leading to a poor gaming experience. We had informed the player that we couldn't proceed without evidence and had requested her complete game history to investigate her claims. However, due to a lack of response from the player to our messages and questions, we had to reject the case. Despite this, we remained open to assist in resolving the matter if the player decided to provide the necessary information in the future.

The player from Australia had encountered issues with withdrawing her winnings from an online casino. Despite correctly providing her IBAN number and reaching out via emails, her withdrawal attempts had been continuously rejected. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information for further investigation, including account verification status and the nature of the winnings. However, due to the player's lack of response to the inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. As a result, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Argentina had made a withdrawal of 5000 through Bitcoin but only received 2000. The casino support had not been able to provide a clear explanation, having claimed that the transaction amount could change. The player's account had already been verified and her winnings were accumulated with real money. We had suggested she contact the payment provider for a statement regarding the withdrawal fees. However, she did not respond to our messages and questions within the given time frame, which led us to reject the complaint due to insufficient information.

The player from the United Kingdom is having withdrawal issues at the casino due to failed ID verification despite providing a clear picture of driving license. The player has reached out to the casino three times but has received no response.

The player from Argentina had encountered an issue with withdrawing his winnings due to an error in the email address associated with his online casino account. Despite our team's efforts to reach out and provide assistance, the player had not responded to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation, leading to the rejection of the complaint. The casino had provided instructions for the player to contact their support for account issues, but it remained unclear whether the player followed these instructions.

The player from Italy had difficulties uploading documents for verification at an online casino. Their driving license and email had been successfully verified, but the casino did not accept any of their address proof documents. The casino clarified that the player's document didn't include the issue date, which was a requirement. We reached out to the player to provide the necessary documents, however, due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions.

The player from the United Kingdom had reported a gambling problem to the casino but her account was not blocked, which resulted in additional deposits being made. She was requesting a refund for the deposits made after informing the casino of her issue. We had asked for evidence of her request for self-exclusion, but she failed to provide any. Her claim of a non-working live chat feature and lack of response from the casino could not be substantiated. Despite having extended the response time, she did not provide any further information. Therefore, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had an issue where his deposit of $2200 (Argentinian pesos) had been deducted from his digital currency account but was not credited to his MyStake Casino account. He had sought a correction or refund. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider and to refrain from making any more deposits until the issue was resolved. Later, the player confirmed that the issue had been resolved and his deposit had been successfully credited to his casino account. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The Dutch player had deposited significant amounts at Mystake, later lost €50.000 due to withdrawal limits, and an additional €1615 after believing their account was closed. Despite having communicated that they were unable to control their gambling and citing the illegality of the casino offering services to them, the casino allegedly hadn't closed the account at that time. The player had provided proof of their communication with the casino and their subsequent deposits. The casino claimed they hadn't detected any gambling addiction problem until January when they closed the account. They also mentioned having reached an agreement with the player, which the player confirmed, stating they would receive a refund of €700. The case was left pending confirmation of the agreement's execution and payment from the casino.

The player from the UK had created a second account on Mystake after closing the first one a year prior due to a gambling problem. After depositing £800, she discovered that having duplicate accounts was against the rules. The casino had processed a withdrawal of £974 and informed her that only £90 would be returned, despite £1074 being in her wallet. The player had provided an email requesting self-exclusion from her first account, but it didn't specify a gambling problem. Consequently, we couldn't assist her further and had to reject her complaint as unjustified.

The player from the UK was struggling with the verification process because he used a prepaid digital wallet and the provider was not offering necessary documents. Additionally, he was unsatisfied with the different pre-set responses received from the casino. We asked the player to provide additional information and extended the response time, but the player failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK had complained about being allowed excessive gambling despite self-exclusion and lack of protective measures during a vulnerable period. She alleged that the casino took £4000 from her before she self-excluded. Despite our team's efforts to gather more information and clarify the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, the player had not responded to our messages. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Argentina had unintentionally activated a free bonus that interfered with their betting style. The bonus had been accidentally activated through a notification, and the player had been unable to contact the casino due to the absence of a communication channel. The bonus, which the player had not used, had been charged to their account. However, the issue was ultimately resolved by the casino, and the player had expressed their satisfaction with the resolution.

The player from Italy had experienced technical issues with the casino website, which she claimed had caused her to lose €500. She had reported the problem to the casino's support team but received no response. Consequently, she had requested for her account to be closed. We had attempted to assist by asking the player for more details, including whether any balance was lost due to the errors and whether any balance remained on her account when she decided to close it. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leaving us unable to further investigate the issue. The complaint had been rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from the UK had opened an account with mystake under a new email, after previously closing one. He had deposited over £1400, but his document submission for withdrawal was rejected on grounds of a duplicate account. The player did not contact the casino about reopening his old account. We pointed out that the creation of multiple accounts by the same individual was a breach of the casino's terms and conditions. As such, the player's account was rightfully closed by the casino and no refunds were due. The complaint was rejected due to the player's violation of the rules.

The player from the UK had a pending withdrawal from Mystake.com. The casino had denied his withdrawal request, demanding additional KYC procedures. Additionally, the player's account had been locked. The player had provided the requested documents but was dissatisfied with the casino's communication. The player did not respond to our inquiries, which led us to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had deposited 30 thousand Argentine pesos via bank transfer, but the amount had not been reflected in his casino account. We had advised him to contact his payment provider. We also recommended that he should not deposit any more funds until the issue was resolved. However, the player did not respond to our messages, which led us to reject the complaint due to a lack of necessary cooperation.

The player from the United Kingdom had initially requested for his account to be closed and subsequently asked for it to be reopened. Although the account was successfully reopened, the casino closed it again, alleging dual accounts. At that time, over £1000 was stuck in the account. The player claimed that he had no knowledge of the two accounts and accused the casino of allowing him to fund the account, place bets, and then withhold his funds due to a lack of control. The Complaints Team, after reviewing the evidence and communication between the player and the casino, found discrepancies in the player's claims and concluded that the casino had acted correctly. The team agreed with the casino's decision to refund only the player's last deposit. However, the player insisted on the return of all disputed funds, which we considered unjustified and closed the case accordingly.

The player from Argentina had an issue with a deposit that was not processed by the casino. Upon receiving the complaint, we advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino typically could not intervene in such cases. We kept the complaint open for a month for updates. However, despite extending the response time by an additional 7 days, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Spain was facing issues with withdrawals. After he submitted the requested card photos, he had not received a response and the withdrawals were still pending. We had extended the timer by 7 days for the player to provide additional information. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. As a result, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the UK, who was registered on Gamstop due to gambling addiction, had lost £3,000 in Mystake casino, which didn't provide immediate self-exclusion functionality. The player was seeking a full refund. The player claimed that she contacted the casino for self-exclusion but they failed to act promptly, leading to further losses. After reviewing the case and the correspondence between the player and the casino, we found that the casino did eventually block the player's account. However, due to the casino not being licensed under UKGC and the player's failure to clearly state the reason for account deactivation in her initial request, we were unable to proceed with asking the casino for a refund. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Italy had mistakenly activated a bonus on his account and had sought help to deactivate it. We had reached out to the player for more information about the bonus and whether they had attempted to cancel it directly or contact the casino. However, despite extending the response time, the player had failed to respond to our inquiries. As a result, we could not proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had a complaint similar to another, having experienced issues with withdrawing funds from My Stake Casino. He had closed his old account and opened a new one, made multiple deposits and won a large sum of money. However, the casino had closed his account without providing a reason when he tried to withdraw his winnings. The player had argued that he only had one active account as the old one was permanently closed and that he didn't violate any terms and conditions. He also claimed that he didn't use any bonuses and that the winnings were fair. However, the Complaints Team had clarified that creating a new account instead of reopening the old one was against the casino's terms, regardless of whether the old account was active or not. They concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms, thus they had the right to terminate his account. The complaint was closed without resolving the player's issue.