Raging Bull Slots Casino Review

A player, reported significant delays in withdrawing $1,000 from Raging Bull Casino after completing account verification. After initially submitting the necessary documents, including bank statements and identification, the player faced repeated requests for re-verification and additional documentation, leading to frustration over conflicting information from customer service representatives. Despite assurances that the case was being escalated, communication broke down, and by late March, player's account appeared to have been deleted without receiving the requested funds. The ongoing issues highlight a lack of responsiveness and organization within the casino's withdrawal process.

The complaint details a player's struggle to withdraw winnings from Raging Bull Slots Casino after winning a jackpot. The player, who used her daughter's card with her permission, faced numerous verification and withdrawal obstacles, including accusations of document tampering. Despite providing requested documentation and following all instructions, the player experienced prolonged delays and poor customer service. The mediator's resolution team noted that using a third-party payment method can complicate withdrawals and that the gambling operator may be unlicensed, potentially putting the player's winnings at risk. Ultimately, after unsuccessful attempts to mediate with the operator, the resolution team indicated a lack of response from the casino, leaving the player's chances of recovery uncertain.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal of $2,000 on 14/9 and has been consistently told it is awaiting manager approval, leading to weeks of delays. Despite previously receiving a withdrawal of $1,000 earlier in the month, the player is frustrated with the ongoing issues after depositing over $10,000 in 45 days. After the player was explained the situation by the casino they requested to close the complaint.

The player from Kansas had requested two withdrawals, both over $400, with the first one made on September 19. They could not access the casino's website due to password issues, which prevented them from checking the status of their withdrawals. The issue was resolved as the player received payments totaling $562.80, although they noted that the fees appeared high. The Complaints Team clarified that the fees were due to bonus fund deductions and a transaction fee, along with cryptocurrency market volatility. The complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Sweden faced issues withdrawing winnings from Raging Bull after being awarded $500 in a crypto raffle. Despite receiving promises for several months that the amount would be credited, the casino subsequently blocked his account and ceased responding. After reviewing the case, it was determined that there was no evidence supporting the claim of the raffle prize being credited to any of the player's accounts, which had shown a zero balance at the time of blocking. Consequently, the complaint was closed as no further assistance could be provided.

The player from Australia faced issues withdrawing money from Raging Bull Casino after winning $610. He was then required to make a crypto deposit for account verification, but after sending $30, the casino claimed they did not receive it. The player also mentioned being told that he was in Australia, which prevented him from receiving bonus winnings. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the team's inquiries, which hindered further investigation and potential resolution.

The player from Texas requested a Bitcoin withdrawal on 08/14/2024, which remained unapproved despite her communication with the casino. While they claimed to escalate the issue, she received no resolution or response from a manager. After further inquiry, she confirmed receipt of her funds, although the amount was $1,910.86 instead of her expected $2,350 due to reversed charges on deposits. The issue was resolved with clarification from the casino regarding the deductions, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Minnesota had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had extended the inquiry period by an additional seven days; however, the player did not respond to requests for information. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to insufficient communication from the player.

The player from Virginia encountered issues withdrawing funds from Raging Bull Casino since May, which led to a cancellation of the initial withdrawal request. After using a bonus and making additional deposits, customer service claimed that the withdrawal was stalled due to bonus usage. The complaint was closed at the player's request, with an understanding that he would reach out if further issues arose.

The player from the US had deposited $96 to Raging Bull Casino but could not access the website. Additionally, he had a $500 withdrawal pending. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the Complaints Team's inquiries, which prevented any further investigation or potential solutions. The issue was later reopened at the player's request, where he clarified that he had approximately $350 remaining in his account but was unable to log in due to restrictions. The Complaints Team was seeking supporting evidence regarding the player's balance to assist in resolving the matter. Ultimately, the issue was resolved after the player communicated with the casino, confirming that his account had been re-activated and access restored. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had requested three Bitcoin withdrawals totaling $3,000 in winnings, which were approved between June and July 2024. Despite repeated promises from the casino host, the player had not received the funds after over 45 days. After engaging with the Complaints Team, the player received $2,250 of the outstanding amount, and further assistance led to the eventual payment of the remaining $750. The issue was resolved, and the player confirmed receipt of all funds.

The player from Indiana had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The issue was addressed by the Complaints Team, who facilitated communication with the casino. The casino confirmed that the payment had been made via Bitcoin and marked as delivered. The player was then expected to confirm receipt of the payment to finalize the resolution.

The player from Argentina requested a withdrawal on June 26, but it remained unapproved and unreviewed as of July 16. Casino support cited an exceeded payment limit requiring further review. After our intervention, the casino confirmed that the player's account was in order, and the withdrawal was processed. The player acknowledged receipt of the payment, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal three weeks prior and faced ongoing issues with ID verification despite being told it was accepted. At that time, the casino claimed it couldn't verify the player's Bitcoin address due to the date of the withdrawal, causing further delays. There was also an issue with the maximum cashout of the bonus. After our intervention, the casino acknowledged a discrepancy in the bonus terms and agreed to review the payout situation. Ultimately, the player received $283 in Bitcoin, resolving the issue to her satisfaction.

The player from Ohio was unable to withdraw winnings from Raging Bull Casino, which continually requested credentials despite the player's compliance. The player was met with excuses for the delays. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, leading to the approval of the necessary banking details. However, the player ultimately ceased responding to inquiries, resulting in the rejection of the complaint due to lack of cooperation.

The player from Massachusetts had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment hadn’t been processed yet. We informed the player about typical withdrawal times and advised patience. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal had been received. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the US was upset about a casino denying their withdrawal after verifying their account and claiming a promotion. They accused the casino of allowing players to unknowingly claim promotions only to deny winnings later. The player threatened negative reviews and action against the casino. We found that the player had redeemed multiple consecutive free bonuses without making any real money deposits, which violated the casino's terms. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal faced an issue with his first deposit, where the money disappeared from the card but then returned after a few hours without appearing in the casino account. He sought to understand the problem. The Complaints Team requested further details from the player but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of communication.

The player from Tennessee had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The player expressed frustration over the delay and shared that the casino cited his bank being on a restricted list as the reason for non-payment. Despite being offered an alternative withdrawal method initially, the player decided to cancel the complaint. The complaint was rejected at the player's explicit request.

The player from the United States faced issues withdrawing money from the casino due to multiple submissions of her driver's license for identity confirmation. Despite several attempts, her documents were repeatedly rejected. The casino also deducted $1014.59 from her account, citing it as ineligible for withdrawal. The player explained her winnings stemmed from a tournament but remained uncertain about the withdrawal restrictions. Due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to investigate further, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The issue was resolved as the casino confirmed that the payment had been made via Bitcoin on August 19, 2024, and was confirmed delivered. The player was then expected to confirm receipt of the payment.

The player from the United States could not withdraw winnings because the casino's verification system repeatedly rejected a valid ID. Multiple attempts to contact support resulted in no resolution. We requested additional information from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Ohio requested a $200 withdrawal on May 31st and had completed the verification process. Customer service repeatedly informed her that the issue was being escalated, but it took 48 business hours each time, causing ongoing delays. The player confirmed on June 13th that the withdrawal was approved and supposed to be sent to her bitcoin account, but she had not received it. After further communication, the player reported on June 27th that the money was received. We marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Oregon had requested a $30 withdrawal from Raging Bull Casino over three weeks prior. Despite approval and a promise of funds within 7-10 business days, the money was not received, and the casino remained unresponsive to follow-ups. The casino stated that the amount was below the minimum withdrawal limit and claimed the deposit was disputed and refunded. The player denied initiating a chargeback but haven't provided a bank statement showing no refund. We reviewed the evidence from the casino confirming the chargeback and concluded that the complaint was unjustified, resulting in its rejection.

The player from Florida had requested a withdrawal of $875 on the 15th, but it had not been reviewed or approved after two weeks. The player had won $1300 minus the coupon amount. After several follow-ups, the casino confirmed the payment was sent to a third-party provider, citing a 3-10 business day window for disbursal. Despite delays, the player reported receiving the payment eventually. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Tennessee had successfully completed previous withdrawals but faced delays in withdrawing the final $500. Despite resolving the issue with a VIP account manager, she discovered her account was blocked the next morning. She sought assistance to access her account and receive her winnings. After reviewing the provided evidence, it was determined that the player did not pass the verification process, and the account closure was deemed legitimate. Therefore, the complaint was declined.

The player from Arizona accused the casino of unauthorized withdrawals totaling $400 following two deposits. The casino closed his account. We requested further details and communications, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from the United States had won over $7000 with a free chip at Raging Bull online casino, but his winnings were removed without a clear explanation. Despite repeated winnings and meeting all requirements, he had been unable to withdraw any funds. Upon investigation, it was found that the casino's terms and conditions only allowed one free chip to be valid between cash deposits. As the player had no history of cash deposits and used multiple free chips consecutively, his winnings were not valid for withdrawal as per the casino's rules. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the player was found to have breached the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Tennessee had an issue with the bonus they accepted using the code SURGEWINS. They were informed after acceptance that there was a 40x playthrough requirement, which they claimed was not stated in the terms and conditions. The player disputed this requirement. Upon review, it was clarified that the 40/60 playthrough requirement was standard for cashback and free bonuses as per the casino's terms and conditions. The bonus had been manually granted with explicit communication of the playthrough requirement via live chat. Since the playthrough conditions were not met and the balance was depleted, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US had over $300 USD available for withdrawal from Raging Bull Slots Casino. However, his withdrawal requests kept leading to the identity verification steps, which he had completed through a third party, Hooyu.com. Despite receiving a verification complete notice from Hooyu, the player encountered an error when trying to proceed to the withdrawal page. He had reported the issue to both Hooyu and Raging Bull Slots Casino, but had not received any assistance. The casino claimed that the player's deposit was declined by the card provider, thus invalidating the winnings. The player was asked to provide an official card statement to verify the deposit, but failed to respond. As a result, we were forced to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Georgia has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Unfortunately, we rejected the complaint because of the lack of response from the player.

The player from Kansas had complained about a withdrawal delay from an online casino. Despite having provided all necessary documents and followed up via email and live chat, the casino had failed to resolve the issue and had requested further documentation. We had intervened and kept the complaint open until the player confirmed that the casino had agreed to wire his withdrawal. However, the casino then extended the waiting period for the payment approval. After further intervention from our side, the casino agreed to convert the player's withdrawal to Bitcoin for a one-time transaction. The player had confirmed the successful resolution and thanked us for our assistance.

The player from the US had requested a withdrawal from an online casino and was asked to submit documentation. However, the casino had remained unresponsive and the player's account had been restricted without explanation. The player had registered their account on March 27th, 2024 and had played slots without an active bonus. The casino had claimed that the winnings originated from a non-cashable bonus, which was deducted upon withdrawal. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the casino had failed to provide sufficient evidence or a response, leading to the closure of the complaint as unresolved. The player had been advised to only play in established, licensed, and well-rated casinos in the future to avoid similar issues.

The player from Ohio had been waiting for a withdrawal for six weeks, despite having provided all necessary documentation multiple times. She had not had a successful withdrawal from this casino before and had won the money without any bonuses. After our team had explained the KYC (Know Your Customer) verification process, the player stopped responding. The casino had stated that the funds were sent to a third-party payment provider, but were rejected by the player's bank and re-deposited into the casino account. The player was advised to provide a new bank account but failed to respond further. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to the lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from the United States had been experiencing delays and complications in withdrawing her $1000 winnings. Despite numerous attempts at verification and following the casino's instructions, her account had been deleted without any explanation. The casino had ceased responding to her inquiries. After the player submitted her complaint to us, we attempted to mediate with the casino. However, the casino stated that the player's documents had failed their verification process and they had closed her account. Despite our efforts, the casino was unable to provide further assistance or evidence, resulting in the case being closed as unresolved.

The player from Indiana had been waiting for a withdrawal since February 2024, which was approved by the casino in March 2024. Despite assurances from live chat support that the withdrawal was being escalated, the player hadn't received his funds. After the player received a partial payment, the casino representative had explained that the remaining amount was deducted due to non-cashable bonuses used by the player. The player disputed this, but the casino had provided evidence supporting their claim. We, the Complaints Team, concluded that the player had been paid in full and rejected the complaint.

The player from the United States had faced issues with withdrawal at Raging Bull Slots Casino, with his requests for several hundred dollars being repeatedly canceled without explanation. He had passed the KYC verification and had accumulated his winnings with both deposit and no-deposit bonuses. Despite the casino's assurance of approval, he had had difficulty receiving payouts. The casino representative had clarified that the player's withdrawals were invalid due to mixed funds and misuse of bonuses, which resulted in the player playing his remaining withdrawable funds to zero. We were unable to assist further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Washington had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The player had experienced difficulties with the casino's withdrawal method, specifically regarding the use of Bitcoin. The casino had requested additional banking information which the player had found unnecessary, given they were using Bitcoin for transactions. The player had one withdrawal approved but not received, and another was still pending. The casino representative had assured that the second payment would be processed soon. However, the player did not confirm the receipt of the second payment. The complaint got rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from the United States was facing issues with a $5600 withdrawal. After the casino had approved the withdrawal, they deactivated the player's account and haven't given any feedback since. The player provided all the necessary information for verification. The Complaints Team had reached out to the casino for clarification, but the casino's representative was unable to provide a full explanation due to an ongoing internal review. The complaint was temporarily closed, pending the necessary information from the casino.

The player from Arizona had faced difficulties with account verification due to a previously used but now invalid credit card, which obstructed his attempts to withdraw $3700. Despite having contacted his bank and resubmitted his ID for verification, the issue had persisted. The casino had confirmed that all necessary documents were in place and the withdrawal was approved, but the player had reported that the funds were still pending. The casino representative had escalated the issue for express disbursal. However, the player did not provide any further updates and the complaint has been rejected.

The player from California had reported that he had requested a withdrawal two months prior, which was approved, but he had not received his funds. The casino had ceased communication. He had reached out to our Complaints Team for assistance. After our team's intervention and communication with the casino, the player confirmed that he had received his payment from Raging Bull Slots Casino. Consequently, the issue had been marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the US had reported significant expenditure at the casino, however, the casino allegedly refused to pay out his winnings. We had attempted to understand the situation by asking the player several questions related to his account verification and the nature of his winnings. Despite extending the response deadline, the player had failed to respond to our queries. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or propose potential solutions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Denmark was facing difficulties with logging in and withdrawing his winnings from an online casino. The casino had advised him to reprocess his withdrawal, but this time in bitcoins. We recommended that he followed the casino's instructions and used an alternative payment method. However, due to lack of response from the player, we had to reject the case. Despite this, we remained open to assisting the player should he have chosen to resume communication in the future.

The player from the United States had discovered he could not access his account with a withdrawal-available balance of over $260. After having complied with the casino rules, he believed his account might have been restricted or suspended without justification. He had created the account a day before the restriction and had not completed the verification process. The casino had clarified that the player had multiple accounts, which was against their terms and conditions, and had mixed funds, which led to the restriction. As a result of these violations, we had rejected the player's complaint.

The player from the US had faced an issue with verifying a virtual card required for her winnings withdrawal at Raging Bull Slots Casino. The Complaints Team had engaged with the casino and the player to better understand the issue. The casino had suggested the player to provide access to the digital wallet where the transaction of cards could be traced or alternatively screenshots with card numbers from the same wallet. Upon receiving this advice, the player had confirmed that her issue was resolved and requested for the complaint to be closed.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawals could sometimes take a few days or weeks to process, and suggested waiting at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The team extended the response time by an additional 7 days, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Illinois had been trying to verify her identity and cards via chat for weeks but had not received responses. This had delayed her withdrawal for over a month. We attempted to assist by asking her to clarify which documents she had provided and when, as well as whether they were in the correct format. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Nebraska had experienced delays in receiving seven different withdrawals via wire transfer from Raging Bull Slots Casino. Despite two approvals, none of the funds had been received, with waiting times surpassing the previously mentioned frames. The player had feared these delays could lead to an indefinite waiting period. The Complaints Team had intervened, communicating with both the player and the casino, and the issue was gradually resolved. The player had received all the withdrawals from his original complaint. However, he was waiting for additional withdrawals from new winnings at that time. The player had expressed his appreciation for the assistance provided by the Complaints Team and Raging Bull Slots Casino.

The player from the Netherlands had experienced a delay in her withdrawal due to 'missing documents'. Despite having sent the documents multiple times, her withdrawal had remained pending for over six weeks. After a series of exchanges with the casino and the complaints team, it was discovered that the casino had not received her proof of address and a valid method of payout. The player then sent these details again, and the casino confirmed receipt. The player had since received most of her winnings but reported a portion still missing. Despite this, she opted to close the complaint due to fatigue over the process. The issue was considered resolved as the player had confirmed receipt of most of her funds.

The player from the US had reported an issue with document verification at an online casino, stating that despite multiple attempts to contact the casino, they had received no response. After the player's documents had been eventually verified, they reported not receiving their payout. The casino representative had later confirmed that the payment was issued via Bitcoin. However, the player had stopped responding to further inquiries from the complaints team, resulting in the complaint being rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Tennessee had won $726 using a play bonus at an online casino, but was unable to withdraw his winnings despite having spent a significant amount at the casino. Upon receiving the player's complaint, we had sought additional information to fully understand the situation, including clarification on the withdrawal issue and status of the player's KYC verification. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the extended time frame, which prompted us to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from the United States had experienced repeated delays in withdrawal from the casino site, despite the completion of payment approval. Communication with the casino provided only new waiting periods and no actual resolution. We attempted to resolve the issue by asking the player several clarifying questions and extending the response deadline by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Austria had met wagering requirements and wanted to withdraw €100, as per the bonus conditions. Despite having tried to make this withdrawal through Live chat and subsequently, via email, his withdrawal request had not been processed after three weeks. The player had won this amount through a no-deposit bonus, but had not completed the KYC verification nor made any deposits in the casino. After reviewing the casino's terms and conditions, we found that players from Austria were required to make a deposit before they could cash out winnings from a no-deposit bonus. Despite explaining this to the player, he remained dissatisfied, refusing to make a deposit and accusing the casino of finding loopholes not to pay him. We had thus concluded that we could not assist the player any further and had rejected the complaint.

The player from the US had adhered to the casino's rules and successfully verified her identity before attempting to withdraw her winnings of $200. However, the casino had cancelled the withdrawal and emptied her account without providing any explanation. Despite the availability of chat support, the casino had failed to communicate with her about the matter. In response, we had reached out to the player for more information to better understand the situation, but the player did not respond. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from Washington had been unable to withdraw $300 in winnings and had an additional $140 confiscated from their casino account. Despite attempts, both the deposit and winnings had not been returned. The player claimed they had won the money after making a deposit, while the casino argued the winnings were from consecutive free chips, which were not eligible for withdrawal. The player had threatened legal action. We attempted to mediate between the player and the casino, however, the issue remained unresolved due to lack of final statement from the casino. The complaint had been marked as 'unresolved', which might have negatively affected the casino's rating.

An Arizona player requested a withdrawal six weeks ago that was approved but not received. The VIP support and department claims to have been notified, and all documentation is reported to be accurate and submitted. The player requests assistance with the prolonged delay. The complaint was resolved as the player finally received his payout from the casino.

The player from California had experienced issues when she tried to withdraw her winnings from an online casino. She had deposited $30, played, and won, but was asked to verify her identity via a third-party website. Despite her efforts, the verification was not acknowledged. Her winnings had been approved for withdrawal but had not been deposited into her account. The casino had begun to dispute her initial deposit. The player provided email receipts from the casino confirming her deposit, but the Complaints Team stated they were unable to argue in her favor without proof that the deposit had left her bank account. The complaint was closed, but the team had offered to reopen it if the player could provide the necessary proof.

The player from Idaho had won $600 from a deposit and had requested a cash-out on December 19. The withdrawal had been approved, but the funds were not received. After discussing the matter with the casino, it was revealed that the winnings had been from free spins, which had a maximum cash-out value of $100. The player also had several disputed deposits totaling $108. An agreement was made to deduct this amount from the next withdrawal, leaving a negative balance of $8. The player had denied the chargebacks, but the casino had provided evidence supporting their claim. Therefore, the complaint was rejected as the player's winnings had been adjusted according to the casino's policies and the chargeback agreement.

The player from Georgia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. She reported that the casino had not verified her account despite her having submitted all necessary documents and she hadn't been able to withdraw her winnings. The casino responded by stating that the player had violated their terms and conditions by using multiple free chips without making a deposit in between, hence her winnings were not valid for withdrawal. We had reviewed the evidence and found the casino's claim to be fair, leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Louisiana had requested a withdrawal from an online casino and had experienced delays and a lack of communication from the casino. Despite the casino eventually having approved the withdrawal after the player's complaint, the funds were not received immediately. Our team had reached out to the player for updates, but the player did not respond, which led us to initially reject the complaint. However, upon reopening the complaint at the player's request, it was confirmed that the funds had been received. The issue was subsequently marked as resolved.

The player from California had withdrawal issues, claiming her username was changed after completing identity verification. She had provided screenshots of her initial deposit and username but was unable to provide a chat transcript discussing the issue with the casino. The casino had responded, stating there were multiple accounts active under her name and another under the same household, which was against their terms and conditions. Consequently, the casino deactivated the additional account and noted the secondary account as her husband's. All requested funds were cancelled, and the casino stated there were no longer any withdrawable funds in her account. We found the casino's actions to be justified due to the player's violation of the casino's terms and conditions by having multiple active accounts. Therefore, we had rejected the player's complaint.

The player from the US had been waiting for three weeks for her withdrawal to be approved, despite the casino's Terms and Conditions having promised a 7-10 day timeframe. This issue remained unresolved despite multiple escalations. The player had confirmed that her withdrawal was approved but she had not yet received her payout. After our team's intervention and communication with the casino's representative, the player finally received her withdrawal. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from Ukraine had claimed that after he registered at the casino and played with a bonus, the casino deducted the money from his account. He argued that there were no warnings about restrictions based on his location. We had attempted to gather more information to understand the situation but the player did not respond to our queries. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to the lack of response from the player, thus halting further investigation or resolution efforts.

The player from California had faced multiple issues with an online casino, including a lengthy identification verification process, denied withdrawal, and a promotional offer not being honored. Despite several discussions with the casino, the player lost her winnings. The player also alleged that the casino failed to honor a promotion and confiscated her winnings. After reviewing the case and the provided documentation, we concluded that the casino had acted according to the promotional rules. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player's account got closed after they provided all the necessary documents for verification. Casino representative responded that they were looking into it. In the end, the documents provided by the player were not satisfactory so the verification was still ongoing.

The player from New York had their account closed without explanation after they requested a withdrawal of $950. Despite having submitted all requested documents for verification, including a Spanish passport, student visa, driver's license, and proof of residence in New York, the casino did not approve the withdrawal and closed the account. The player had maintained communication with the casino and the Complaints Team, providing all requested information. The casino had stated that the account closure and fund removal were decisions made at a high level within their security department, but did not provide specific reasons or evidence to support this action. As a result, the Complaints Team was forced to close the case as 'unresolved', which negatively affected the casino's rating.

The player from the US had been attracted to a promotion that stated 'No Play through Bonuses'. Despite the casino having advertised it as such, after depositing, the player had discovered a 1x playthrough requirement. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the bonus conditions, however, he had continued to play and accumulate winnings. The Complaints Team had attempted to address the player's concerns and asked for updates on the account verification process, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of communication from the player's side. We had been unable to proceed with an investigation or provide a potential solution.

The player from the United States had concerns about withdrawal delays that exceeded the periods stipulated in the casino's terms and conditions. Despite contacting customer service, his questions remained unresolved. We attempted to address the player's concerns and asked for additional details to investigate the case. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was rejected but could be reopened if the player decided to resume communication.

The player from the United States had reported an issue of not having received her approved Bitcoin withdrawal even after a month. Despite her consistent follow-ups, the withdrawal had remained pending. After her complaint was lodged, the casino resolved the issue and sent the pending Bitcoin withdrawal. The player had confirmed the receipt of her withdrawal, and the complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from the United States had won a major jackpot at Raging Bull Slots but, despite having sent all requested documents, the player had been locked out of his account with no reply from the casino. The player had paid cash from his card twice. The player's account was blocked on December 2nd, after he had sent all necessary documents for verification on December 1st. Despite our team's efforts to mediate and request a response from the casino, the casino had claimed that there were not enough funds in the player's bank account to cover the deposits, including the winning deposit. The player had disputed this claim and was asked to provide a bank statement, but failed to respond to our request. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Washington had requested a withdrawal a month ago. Despite having their request approved, the money had not reached their Bitcoin wallet. After the player confirmed that this was his first withdrawal and he had been verified for almost a month, we had invited the casino's representative to the conversation. The casino had stated that the $100 withdrawal was paid out via Bitcoin, but the player did not confirm receipt of the funds. Despite our efforts to contact the player, he did not respond to our messages. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the US had been experiencing consistent withdrawal denials from the online casino, which had then confiscated her winnings entirely. The player had allegedly provided the casino with all requested documents for account verification, yet the casino cited a discrepancy with the deposit and blocked her from the website. The casino's representative had stated that the issue arose due to their third-party payment providers being unable to collect the deposit the player had made. However, the complainant insisted she made the deposit and provided a bank statement as proof, which did not show the deposit in question. The Complaints Team had been unable to resolve the issue due to a lack of response from the player to their questions and request for additional documents. Therefore, the case had been rejected.

This player from Indiana had experienced a delayed withdrawal of $600 that had been made on November 25th after three $20 deposits. The player had not made any withdrawals from the casino before and had deposited and withdrawn in Bitcoin. After 20 business days of waiting and no approval of the withdrawal, the player had contacted us. We had engaged with the casino representative who confirmed all was in place for the payment to be released. The player later confirmed receipt of the withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Ohio had submitted a withdrawal request two weeks prior. Despite having provided all the requested verification details to the customer service, the withdrawal was still pending and there had been no communication from the casino. The player's account had been verified in October and she had won a jackpot after several deposits. She had reached out to the casino's customer service but received no response. The casino's representative had stated that the casino couldn't proceed with the withdrawal because the player's bank account needed to have had previous activity for the third-party payment providers to transfer funds. The player had opened this account specifically for this casino as her previous bank did not have a swift code. Despite multiple attempts to provide the necessary documents and information, the withdrawal issue remained unresolved. The casino had stated that they couldn't locate the additional payout details submitted by the player. The player had resent the documents but there was no progress. The casino had asked for additional documents such as a fourth bank statement and a utility bill, which the player had provided. The player confirmed that she had sent those documents. However, the player did not respond to further inquiries from us and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Ohio had provided all necessary documentation, but the casino had not paid out her winnings, citing unapproved documents as the reason. She had been dealing with this issue since December 4th. Despite her multiple attempts to resolve the issue, including providing screenshots of bank transactions and emails, she kept receiving the same excuses from the casino. The casino claimed that the cash deposit was denied by the issuing bank, hence the withdrawal request was also denied. The player disputed this claim. The Complaints Team had tried to assist by inviting the casino representative to the conversation and requesting additional information from the player, but the issue remained unresolved due to the player's non-response to the latest requests.

The player from Italy had a verified account and an approved withdrawal that he had not received. He had claimed his winnings of 1063 were removed from his gaming account, but he had never received the funds. After a series of questions to clarify the situation, we contacted the casino. The casino had responded that the player's deposit was denied by his bank, and they were unable to collect the funds, which led to the removal of his winnings. Based on this evidence, we had to reject the complaint, as the player had played with non-existing money.

The player from Ohio had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had previously made successful withdrawals and all her documents had been verified. The casino had approved her withdrawal but the funds were not deposited. After a series of communications, the casino requested the player's Bitcoin address to process the payment. The player had expressed dissatisfaction over the delay, comparing it to faster services in other casinos. After an extension of the resolution period, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Florida had their winnings removed by the casino manager due to an alleged deposit issue, despite there being no proof of any attempts to charge his account. The player had reported a successful deposit with a debit card and had received a confirmation email from the casino. However, when the player had attempted to withdraw their winnings, the casino had claimed there was an issue with the deposit and had requested a bank statement. The player's bank had confirmed no such charge attempt was made. The casino, on the other hand, had insisted that the deposit was denied by the issuing bank. After reviewing the case, we had concluded that despite the poor user experience the casino was within its rights to deny the withdrawal since the original deposit was not successful. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Georgia had requested a withdrawal seven weeks ago. Despite having been approved, there has been no progress or payout since then. We had reached out to the player to gather more information and had extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player did not provide any further response. Unable to investigate without the necessary information, we had no choice but to reject the complaint.

The player from Alabama had been waiting for a withdrawal for over two weeks. Despite being assured that all documents were approved, no one was responding to her emails and there was no phone number to contact. We reached out to her for more information regarding her withdrawal request and to ascertain if she had made any successful withdrawals before. However, she did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Washington deposited money in the casino won a total of 3600 and requested a withdrawal. Shortly afterwards, the account was emptied and the casino claimed they did not receive the deposit, even though deposit confirmation was sent. Her account was subsequently banned and no responses have been received from the casino for two weeks. Later, it turned out that the player's transaction confirmation did not show the deposit made to the casino. The complaint was rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions after requesting additional details and documents.

The player from the United States faced a delay in withdrawal beyond the described timeline. Initially, incorrect information on payment scheduling was addressed, and subsequently, her payout in June was withheld due to an issue with a canceled card. She had been waiting on the approved withdrawal for 27 days. We attempted to resolve the issue by extending the timer for her response and asking several clarifying questions. However, due to her lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Virginia requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment has not been processed yet. It turned out that there were serious violations of the casino's Terms and Conditions, as well as the rules governing conditions for bonuses. The complaint was closed as unjustified due to the complainant's failure to meet the bonus conditions and obvious multiple account use and bonus abuse. The casino acted in accordance with its rules, and we accept its decision.

The player from Oklahoma was facing withdrawal delays from his casino account, and the casino had asked him to cancel the withdrawal request which had been pending for almost three weeks. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player and gather more information to understand the situation better, the player did not respond. Therefore, we could not proceed with the investigation, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from South Carolina waited two weeks without a response about his withdrawal request. Upon checking, he found the withdrawal amount returned to his balance, which he depleted due to lack of assistance from the casino's support. The complaint was closed as the player lost his withdrawable balance.

The player from Arizona had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. We had advised the player that withdrawals could take some time to process, and might be delayed due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We had extended the complaint resolution timer by 7 days, but the player failed to respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Georgia has made a withdrawal request three weeks ago which was approved but the funds have not been received yet. He specifies he made two deposit transactions by debit card and two via Bitcoin. Casino has provided us with evidence of the inability of the casino's 3rd party payment providers to collect on player's deposits, therefore, we have rejected the complaint.

The player from California had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing times could vary, and suggested waiting at least 14 days from the withdrawal request before filing a complaint. They also extended the complaint response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response to their inquiries, the team was unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Kentucky had experienced technical difficulties while registering on the inclave platform, specifically when she was entering her birthdate. The player had been entering her birthdate in the month/day/year format instead of the required day/month/year format. After she changed the format, the player was able to successfully register her account. The Complaints Team has since marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States had experienced issues with depositing because a card, not owned by the player, had been associated with their account. She had requested to remove the card to allow for continued play and withdrawal capabilities. After some back and forth with the casino's representative, it had been confirmed that the card had been used for a deposit. However, the player had insisted she did not own the card and nobody else had access to her account. Eventually, the casino had agreed to remove and block the card from the player's account as a courtesy, resolving the issue. The player had been satisfied with the outcome and expressed her gratitude.

The player from the United States has a delayed withdrawal and is now experiencing problems accessing his casino account. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from Connecticut was disconnected from the server after scoring in "Legends of the High Seas" using free spins. Upon reconnecting, she noticed no money was awarded for the spin, and the representative denied any issue. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States notes a sudden decrease of $140 in account balance after one spin on the game 'Mighty Drums'. The player claims the loss happened without explanation and their attempts to contact the casino have been unresponsive. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hasn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team advised the player that such delays might have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We recommended waiting at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the player failed to respond to the team's follow-up messages, which led to the complaint being rejected due to a lack of further information.

The player from the US, after winning $1,580 and being verified, requested a withdrawal. However, despite an 8-day approval period, 7 more business days passed and no payment was received. The casino cited a discrepancy with the deposit, denying the payment without offering the opportunity to provide proof. We’ve rejected this complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Texas made a withdrawal request three weeks ago. The casino has failed to respond via email and only communicates through chat with promises of an escalated case. However, it's been 20 days without further action. Finally, after the situation was reviewed from the casino's representative, the player received his winnings.

The player from the United States encountered an issue where his winnings disappeared due to his deposit information being missing, despite his credit card being charged. The casino requested extensive personal information, which he refused to provide and now he wants to close his account. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Nevada has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from the United States is unable to access his Raging Bull Casino account and has unsuccessfully tried to contact support numerous times. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint. We have reopened the complaint as per the request of the player. All deposits in the player account in question were denied for collection on the player/bank end therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from the United States is facing issues with receiving his payout. Additionally, he is now unable to log in to the site. Despite our attempts to contact the casino, it didn't react to the complaint therefore the case was closed as unresolved. However, the player informed us the other day that the winnings had been received and the issue solved, therefore we changed the status of the complaint to the "solved" one.

The player from Alaska received a sign-up bonus, met wager requirements, and verified the account. However, access to his account was blocked after he tried to withdraw his winnings. The player contacted support and received a case number, but no further assistance. After gathering all the necessary information, we end up closing this complaint as unjustified due to breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions - reasonable grounds to believe the player registered and used more than one account in the casino. The casino acted in accordance with its Terms and Conditions.

The player from the United States experienced difficulties with Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals. Customer service has been unresponsive and unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the player did not respond to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the US is experiencing delays when requesting withdrawals from the casino. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal more than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal almost three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from the US is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings. According to the player, the winnings he gained were capped. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Oregon has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The casino has sent the payment to the crypto wallet the player has provided and there is nothing that can be done from our side as this issue is beyond our control. We advised the player to contact the payment provider directly. The player later let us know the withdrawal had been successfully received, so we consider this complaint to be resolved.

The player's balance was capped for an unknown reason. We asked the casino for more information. While waiting for a reply, the player informed us that the casino had contacted her and that her balance had been restored. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Texas redeemed multiple free chips without making a deposit in between. The casino confiscated her winnings. We rejected the complaint because the casino acted in compliance with their bonus terms.

Player ''AMYLOU777'' won $15.000, however, they never received the winnings. They repetitively tried to contact the casino via email but with no response. When the player managed to get in touch with casino representative, they were told that the casino had been experiencing a very high amount of withdrawal requests and that they would look at the player's withdrawal ASAP. The player has been waiting months.

A player from Australia made a withdrawal request in the amount of AUD 2.500 but had not received any money or any correspondence from the casino. After 4 chats and 2 emails sent, the player was told that they were very busy in payment department. The player tried to log in, but they received a message stating that carnival room was not available in their country (Australia) at that time. Therefore, they could not access any of the chatroom conversations. The player's initial deposit for the winnings was made probably a month or more before the complaint was submitted and it did include a No rules bonus - so there was no playthrough or other requirements. The casino has not responded to the complaint.

The player has been waiting for 8 withdrawals in total amount of $20,000 for 9 months. He said the casino was not responding to his emails and the live chat option had been turned off for him. He said that before this, he'd been told he was no longer a VIP, and lost his host until they'd made more deposits.

A player from New South Wales placed a withdrawal request on the 24 July 2022, however, despite that they submitted documents for verification and passed the checks, the withdrawal was still pending 7 weeks later. There was no reaction from the casino site whatsoever.

The player from the United States had his account blocked without further explanation. After reviewing all the necessary information and details, we concluded the player is not entitled to the winnings obtained in this way. He created more than 15 accounts in the casino and used the same bonuses in most of these accounts, while this account was far from the first. Although the player later failed to reply and provide us with additional details, the gathered data from the casino clearly show a serious breach of the terms and conditions (using more than 1 account) and bonus abuse. Thus, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player struggles to verify his account as the casino is non responsive. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as the player didn't fully follow the casino's bonus terms and conditions.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal in November. The casino informed us that the player's withdrawal should have been processed in the second half of December 2022. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The player has confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the US deposited on top of an active bonus. The player stated that she wasn't aware of having any active bonuses but the casino confiscated her winnings. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the player made a deposit on top of two different bonuses and indeed played with mixed funds.

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

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal one month prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The player has confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from Australia has requested a withdrawal three months prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino representative informed us that the VIP room where the player was registered and requested a payout was no longer associated with the Raging Bull Slots at that time, so we were forced to reject the complaint.

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

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player's verification was stuck and she was unable to withdraw her winnings. The account was verified, however, based on the casino's Terms and Conditions we found out that it is not allowed to withdraw any winnings earned by using the used type of bonus from a country the player resides, and bonuses can be used for amusement purposes only if a player has not made any deposit to the casino before. The complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from US is dissatisfied with the withdrawal process. The casino responded and stated that the player's withdrawal had been approved and that they should receive it soon. Shortly after, the payment was received and the issue was resolved.

The player struggled to withdraw as his requests were getting rejected. After several complications and not receiving emails from the casino representative, the player decided to withdraw his funds via crypto wallet. The player confirmed that he received the payment about 2 months after filing the complaint. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States has redeemed a Deposit Bonus advertised as a “no playthrough promotional offer” just to find out later, that due to a payment method used, the bonus has to be wagered. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played before we could intervene.

The player's withdrawal is delayed for unknown reason. The casino responded to the complaint and soon after the player's payments began to be processed. The player received all of their payments and the issue was resolved.

The player from US is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds, because casino offers only 2 withdrawal options. The complaint was rejected as the player did not wish to continue resolving the issue.

The player's account got blocked withouth further explanation. The complaint has been closed as rejected as the player was blocked previously in the sister casino and that's why was his account blocked with Raging Bull Slots.

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal three weeks ago. It hasn't been received yet. Even though we assume that the issue has been resolved, without confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from United States had been waiting for their withdrawal to be processed for over a month before submitting the complaint. Within a month afterwards, the player's withdrawal was processed and their winnings were successfully received. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player's withdrawal is delayed for over 2 months. Although the player received only a part of his outstanding balance, we assumed it was because of a sticky bonus, which is very likely given the nature of the casino. Since the player is not responding any more, we are considering this complaint as resolved.

The player from United States had his bonus winnings voided due to playing a restricted game with funds that were still bound by a bonus, despite the fact that the attached wagering requirements had already been met. The bonus, just like the majority of bonuses offered by the casino was sticky, meaning that the bonus amount is deducted upon withdrawal. After considering all circumstances, including the fact that the player was able to gain an advantage thanks to the violation, we decided not to penalize the casino in this case. The player's complaint was rejected as 'unjustified'.

The player from Canada had his winnings cancelled without further explanation. Later, it became clear that the player had previously tried to pass the KYC by providing photos that have been manipulated with. The casino provided relevant proofs. After a thorough examination of the provided evidence, the complaint was rejected as 'unjustified'.

The player from US is experiencing issues with a withdrawal due to unfinished verification. After the casino were able to confirm the details with the player, the withdrawal was successful and the complaint is resolved.

The player from Australia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings as his preferred Commonwealth bank isn’t supported and might have additional restrictions related to transfers. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Australia has received only a part of her winnings probably due to the maximum cash out limit. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player complained they had been waiting for the withdrawal request to be transferred to their bank account for months. They said the withdrawal had the status of 'processed' but the live chat kept reassuring them their money would be transferred soon but so far, they didn't receive anything. In the end, the player was not allowed to log in to their casino account. No reaction from the casino, no more update ever since.