Bitcasino.io Review

The player from Spain had reported an issue regarding a halted roulette game. After the player's bet on red had won, the game had been paused, a new dealer had intervened and initiated another spin which the player lost. The casino's explanation had been that the initial spin was corrected, but the player argued that it should have been cancelled and the bet refunded. The player had provided communication with the casino, stating that they believed the round should have been cancelled and the bet returned, based on their understanding of the game rules. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino and the game rules, the Complaints Team had concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with the game rules, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Georgia had deposited 116.55 mBTC, played and won 44.29 mBTC at an online casino. However, the casino had refused to process the player's withdrawal request, asked him to go through another verification process, and then accused him of being a 'fraudster'. The player insisted on withdrawing his winnings. After reviewing the provided evidence and the casino's terms and conditions, we had concluded that the player had breached the casino's rules by using multiple accounts with the intention of Double Spending Blockchain transactions. Therefore, we had rejected the complaint as unjustified, as the casino had acted according to its terms and conditions.

The player from Vietnam felt deceived by Bitcasino's promise of a 20% cashback on the first-time deposit. After depositing $600 and losing, the casino denied the player's cashback despite the successful completion of two identity verification requests. We clarified that each casino had its own unique bonus policy and it was up to the casino to determine if a player qualified for it. Since the player had lost their entire deposit and had no balance left in their account, we were unable to assist further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Vietnam had deposited $800 and lost it all. The casino had promised a 20% cashback on first deposit losses within 7 days, but the player did not receive this cashback. Despite several attempts to contact casino support, the player had not received a response. The player had had issues with his registered email, which prevented him from communicating with the casino. We had advised him to resolve his email issues and contact the casino directly. However, the player failed to respond to our follow-up messages, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Vietnam had claimed that the casino hadn't provided the promised 20% cashback on a $700 loss within 7 days as advertised on their website. After depositing the money and participating in the promotion, the player had contacted the casino for cashback but received no response. The player was asked to verify their identity, which they did, but the issue remained unresolved. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player for further information, we received no response. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Russia had reported that BitCasino had allowed him to play and lose a significant amount of cryptocurrency despite his jurisdiction where online gambling was prohibited. He also claimed that the casino had not performed any Anti-Money Laundering checks or verified his well-being despite indicators of compulsive gambling. He had made a formal claim for a refund and account closure. The account was closed, but he hadn't received a refund. The Complaints Team had clarified that they didn't deal with licensing obligations and policies and had suggested the player contact the casino's regulatory authority. The player had also raised issues about the casino's resources and capabilities to prevent problematic gameplay, predatory behavior, and communication failure. The Complaints Team had informed him that they could not consider these reasons for a refund. They had recommended the use of a Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool to help limit his access to gambling. The player later raised concerns about the casino's adherence to the Fair Gambling Codex, but the Complaints Team had clarified that the situation was not comparable. The player was advised to contact the casino directly for more information about his account closure.

The player from Japan requested a withdrawal and completed the KYC process, but the casino denied the withdrawal and closed the player's account due to an alleged breach of the casino's Terms and Conditions. The player had previously made a successful withdrawal. Due to evidence brought forth by the casino the complaint has been rejected.

The player ''ZEEBE1214'' had gone through verification once but was still getting error messages when trying to place bets. He decided to withdraw the funds but was asked to undergo another verification called "VERIFY", which he failed to finish due to unaccepted IDs. The mediator tried to contact the casino but received no response. The case was closed as "unresolved".