Rolletto Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom faced repeated rejections of her £2000 withdrawal request from her Rolletto account, despite having completed the verification process. She provided video proof of identity at the casino's request, but after two weeks, she had not received any updates and was concerned about accessing her total balance of €7000. The issue was successfully resolved after the complainant confirmed that.

The player from the United Kingdom had opened a new account with the casino and got verified, but later discovered that he had previously closed accounts with the casino. Despite asking if there were no duplicate accounts before making a £100 deposit, the casino had incorrectly confirmed that there were none, leading the player to believe it was safe to deposit. At that point, the player requested a reversal of the deposit, deeming the casino untrustworthy. The Complaints Team expressed regret over the outcome and acknowledged the player's request to delete his account, as insufficient evidence had been provided to support the claims against the casino.

The player from Spain had a winning bet of €500 on the roulette, but the amount was not credited to his account. The casino later cited an error as the reason and refused to credit his winnings. The Complaints Team extended the response time for the player to provide additional evidence but ultimately rejected the complaint due to the lack of response and further information from the player.

The player from the United Kingdom had won a significant amount through live games and faced difficulties during the verification process. Despite receiving emails confirming account verification and proof of address, the casino claimed there were too many verification attempts and required the player to contact support. The Complaints Team had extended the response time but ultimately, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to inquiries.

The player from Thailand had their winnings confiscated at Rolleto casino, which claimed a violation of terms and conditions. The bonus option had been disabled, and only the last deposit remained, which needed to be wagered according to the rules. The casino was not responding to the player's communication. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino and received relevant evidence supporting the casino's claims of multiple accounts and bonus abuse, leading to the conclusion that the complaint was unjustified.

The player from Brazil had her account at Rolletto Casino blocked after winning R$500.00, despite having completed all verification steps, including a video. The casino claimed that multiple individuals' documents had been uploaded, which violated their rules. The player insisted that only her personal documents had been submitted. We reviewed the evidence provided by the casino and confirmed that the player had not passed the verification successfully, leading to the rejection of her complaint.

The player from Brazil was unable to withdraw funds via Pix for 10 days despite submitting all required documents. Support was unhelpful in resolving the issue. We attempted to gather more details and extended the response time, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from the United Kingdom, despite being self-excluded, was able to create a new account and deposited £4500 in 16 hours. The player requested that the new account be closed immediately due to a serious gambling problem. The player confirmed that all personal details were the same for both accounts, except for the email address. However, without solid documentation proving that the self-exclusion had failed, and since self-exclusion needed to be done individually for each casino, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting her complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. After several communications regarding the delay, the casino confirmed that the funds had been sent, but the player reported not receiving them in her bank account. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Germany had deposited €500 and earned a €750 bonus at Rolletto Casino, turning it into €14,000 after meeting the bonus requirements. However, the casino removed his winnings, citing a violation of terms without specifying the issue, leaving only €400 in his account. Upon investigation, evidence was found of multiple accounts being opened from the same IP address with the same phone number, which was against the casino's terms. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to the violation of the casino's multiple account policy.

The player from the United Kingdom was allowed to deposit with a credit card. She requested a refund of her deposits, but her balance was already zero, and she had not received a response from the casino. We explained that using a credit card for deposits was not a valid reason for a refund and that the player was responsible for her account and bets. Due to no further response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had previously self-excluded, was able to create a new account, deposit, and win £1200. When attempting to verify, the account was blocked, and there had been no response from the casino. After contacting the casino, it was confirmed that the player should not have been able to open a new account. We facilitated communication between the player and the casino, resulting in the casino agreeing to refund the player's deposit. The player successfully received £585 after resolving verification issues.

The player from Rwanda faced account closure and forfeiture of winnings because both he and his wife had accounts sharing the same IP address. Despite attempts to verify their separate identities and comply with terms, the casino did not address the issue, resulting in the loss of his winnings. He sought a review of his case and restoration of his winnings. We requested additional information from the player, but he did not provide a timely response. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and rejected the complaint.

The player from Italy had been waiting for three days for a withdrawal of 2500 euros, despite the transaction having been marked as 'successful.' The player reported previous experiences of immediate credit once marked successful and was concerned about the delay. We informed the player that processing times could vary and advised patience. The player expressed confusion about the delay and mentioned the casino suggesting a different payment method. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

The player from Lebanon was unable to withdraw his winnings as the casino had temporarily frozen his account without any specified reason. The player had been with the casino for a few months and his account was blocked without a clear explanation. The player's winnings were accumulated through sports betting, without using bonuses. After discussing the issue, it was determined that the complaint fell outside of our jurisdiction as it pertained to sports betting. We offered to send the player a list of recommended websites that could potentially assist him in resolving his issue.

The player from the UK had an issue with a casino after having received a 10% cashback bonus on a €50 deposit. He had only been able to withdraw €50 of his €950 balance. The casino's live chat had suggested this was due to a 10x withdrawal limit on bonus winnings, a rule the player had disputed. We examined the casino's bonus conditions and found that the cashout limit did indeed apply to the cashback bonus. The player's account had been locked by the casino, which had stated that it would be unlocked once the €50 withdrawal was made. We had requested further communication records from the player to investigate the issue further, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK had her account closed by Rolletto Casino after she requested a refund due to her gambling addiction. She had previously self-excluded herself from Mystake, a sister site of Rolletto. She accused Rolletto of allowing her to cancel pending withdrawals, which led to excessive wagering. The player, who registered on GamCare/GamStop while depositing and wagering, believed Rolletto took advantage of her situation. We had explained that self-exclusion from one casino does not automatically apply to associated websites. The player did not respond to further inquiries, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal two weeks prior and hadn't received the funds despite multiple interactions with the live chat. After we intervened and asked for more details about her situation, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Montenegro had been playing at an online casino for a year, making deposits via Neteller. Recently, she encountered an issue when she tried to withdraw her winnings and discovered that only cryptocurrency options were available, a method she was unfamiliar with. The casino support had informed her that this was the only withdrawal method currently available. After communicating with our team, the player managed to successfully withdraw her winnings using Bitcoin. We had then marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Turkey had faced a delay in withdrawal request for 3,000 EUR, despite having provided all necessary documents including video selfies with ID. The casino's customer support, including live chat and email, had proven non-responsive. The player had not been informed about any specific issues with account verification. He had registered the account around 28.12.2023 and played slots with a bonus. We had contacted the casino and were informed that the player had successfully withdrawn the money. However, the player did not confirm receiving the payout and the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from the United Kingdom had self-excluded from GoldenBet, but had managed to create an account with Rolletto, another casino under the same company, and had deposited over £18k. The casino had refuted any responsibility, asserting that they operated as separate entities. The player had subsequently requested self-exclusion from Rolletto and his account was closed. We had explained to the player that self-exclusion from one casino did not automatically apply to all associated casinos. As the player's account was already closed, we were unable to take further action. The complaint had been rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had raised a complaint regarding an unsuccessful withdrawal attempt at an online casino. The player stated that they were unable to withdraw their winnings of £800, which subsequently led them to gamble and lose the amount. The player felt that the casino manipulated the withdrawal process, causing them to lose their winnings. Despite the player's claims, we had concluded that there was little we could do to assist as the player was responsible for their account and betting activities. The player also raised concerns about the casino's expired license, which we had noted in our review of the casino. The complaint had thus been rejected.

The player from India had won a Twitter giveaway on Rolletto casino and, after meeting the wagering requirements, had 79 Euro in his account and continued playing. After a successful 200 Euro withdrawal and further gameplay, the account had been frozen and 726 Euro had been withdrawn by the system. The casino had limited the player to a maximum withdrawal of 100 Euro due to the bonus amount, despite the player having made additional deposits and wins. The player had claimed that the casino had acted late in freezing his account, allowing him to deposit and win more. The casino had argued that the player was aware of the maximum withdrawal rules. After reviewing the player's game history, we confirmed that the player's funds were made from his real money balance and should have been paid in full. The casino had paid the player in full, resolving the issue.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take up to two weeks and might be delayed due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had offered to intervene if the withdrawal was not received within the 14-day period. However, due to the player's lack of response to the follow-up inquiries, we were unable to assist further and the complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom is having issues with the identity verification process at Rolletto. Despite having verified his email, address, and bank card his ID submissions, including his driving license and passport, have been rejected without explanation. Despite the player's numerous attempts, the issue remains unresolved. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Her money hadn't been received yet. The issue had stemmed from a delay in the verification process, which had prevented her from withdrawing her funds. She had reported that there was no available online support and she had sent numerous emails to expedite the process. However, the issue was eventually resolved, and the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal.

The player from the United Kingdom, despite being self-excluded due to a nervous breakdown, was still able to deposit funds across related online casinos. We closed the complaint because the player didn't reply to our messages and questions.

The player from the United Kingdom had won 1300 euros from free spins. The account had been abruptly closed while they were still playing and despite attempts to seek clarification, the casino had referred to their rules but wouldn't provide more information, leading to the loss of winnings. The player hadn't provided betting history, despite our requests, which could have helped to understand if there had been any breaches of the casino's bonus terms. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint due to the lack of player's response.

The player from Germany had his account at Rolletto casino blocked for six months after he increased his balance from 1002.94 USD to 3638.67 USD. Despite having passed the identification check, he was denied a withdrawal. The player's main focus was on sports betting, specifically basketball, and he also played some live blackjack and baccarat at the casino. The casino cited "suspicious activities" as the reason for blocking the account but did not give any further details. We had contacted the casino for more information and the casino team confirmed that the player had played purely sports betting. As the player's complaint was primarily related to sports betting, we were unable to provide further assistance because our expertise was limited to online casinos and casino games. We advised the player to seek help from platforms that specialize in sports betting.

A player from the UK reports two winning transactions were not credited to his account during a game. The game provider acknowledged the error, but the casino continues to investigate the issue after seven days with no resolution. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting his complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received at that time. The player reported that his withdrawal request had been pending for more than two weeks, despite the casino stating that they had sent the funds. After the player's continuous follow-ups and our intervention asking the casino to provide a tracking code for the transaction, the casino assured that they were liaising with their bank to resolve the issue. After a few more days, the player confirmed that he had finally received his funds. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Spain made multiple deposits of 10€ each to the casino, but the balance did not appear in their account despite being deducted from their bank account. They are seeking help to recover it. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding

The player from Azerbaijan reports winning after initial losses, however, the casino blocked his account for a six-month investigation without a clear motive. The player claims he has been ignored and not provided with any explanations for the block. After contacting an affiliate it turns out the complaint is sports betting related, therefore, we have rejected the complaint.

A player from the United Kingdom deposited £1000 and increased balance up to £5541.79. Even though their account is verified, the casino claims that the player violated the T&Cs by having more than one account, which the player denies. As a result, the casino has confiscated their winnings and restricted them from making any withdrawals. The casino has provided us with evidence of multiple accounts, therefore we have rejected the complaint.

A player from the United Kingdom claims the online casino short-changed him in Bitcoin withdrawal. He withdrew 700 Euros, equivalent of 0.0275 Bitcoin but received only 0.0025 Bitcoin, worth 635 Euros. He finds the explanation of 'payment provider fees' from support unjustified. The complaint was resolved as the casino compensated the player with the missing balance.

The player from the UK had been unable to access live roulette games on Rolletto due to a geographical restriction error. Despite having played without issue for a year, the casino's customer service had been unable to resolve the issue. The player confirmed that he could access all other games and had tried different devices. He also noted that using a VPN enabled him to play live roulette, but he felt this should not have been necessary as he lived in England. We had advised the player against trying to circumvent the IP block and suggested he tried to find the game in another casino instead.

The player from the United Kingdom had reported that after two successful withdrawals, a large withdrawal request of £6800 was rejected and his card details were suddenly unverified by the casino. Despite efforts to re-upload card details, the system had automatically rejected them. The account status had only returned to verified after the player had lost their winnings. We had communicated with the player, but due to a lack of response from him, we were unable to investigate further. As a result, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia struggles to withdraw their winnings, despite completing the KYC process and meeting the wagering requirements by placing bets over 150 Euros. The casino continuously denies the withdrawal. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United Kingdom, registered with GamStop due to a gambling addiction, managed to open an account with Rolletto, and lost a significant amount of money. The player is seeking a refund. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany deposited 1,071€ using a Skrill Prepaid Credit Card and later decided to withdraw 900€. The casino requested information related to the credit card, which the player promptly provided. Despite communication attempts, the withdrawal is yet to be processed. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Norway is unable to successfully complete the KYC verification process due to difficulties encountered while uploading his identity documents. Unfortunately, the player stopped responding to our comments and questions, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom requested a withdrawal back in April. They found out that the casino used wrong BIC code when sending out the payment. After sending funds one more time, casino successfully deposited them into the player's bank account.

The player from United Kingdom has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. Waiting for the decision of the regulator. The player has contacted us stating that with the help of the wallet provider, they were able to recover the funds, therefore we have closed this complaint as resolved.

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

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

The player from Moldova is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The casino provided evidence suggesting that the information provided by the player regarding his payment cards was not legitimate. The player was questioned regarding this, but as there was no further response from them the complaint was rejected.

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

The player from El Salvador is complaining about the lengthy verification process. Since we haven’t received any response from the casino regarding the issue, we are forced to close the complaint as ‘unresolved’. After reopening the complaint as per the casino's request and receiving supporting evidence that the money has been paid, we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada has been blocked without further explanation. Unfortunately, the player only played sports betting before his account was blocked, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player's account got closed for 6 months due to an ongoing investigation. The casino failed to respond and so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. The casino then requested that the complaint be reopened, stating that the player would be able to access their account if they completed a video verification call. The player complied and then received their payment, although their account was blocked thereafter.

The player from Ukraine has been blocked without further explanation. We did not receive any reply from the casino team, but later the case was reopened, and the casino team informed us that the player got his winnings. Unfortunately, the player did not react in complaint, so we were forced to reject the case.

The player from Germany has been blocked without further explanation. Initially, the casino replied and stated that they would investigate the situation. However, there was no further response and so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. After some time, the casino requested the complaint be reopened as the problem with the player's account had been solved. The player confirmed this and so the complaint was resolved.

The player from Ukraine had their account blocked without further explanation for six months. The remaining balance is still held by the casino. We did not receive any reply from the casino team, therefore the case was closed as 'unresolved'. Later, the case was reopened, and the player's issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Ukraine has their account blocked. The casino claimed that the player breached its Terms and Conditions but did not have sufficient evidence supporting its claims and decision. The complaint was temporarily closed as 'unresolved' because the casino stopped responding, resp. did not receive enough data from its game provider. Recently, we were provided with enough evidence from the casino that confirms a breach of its Terms and Conditions. The player played a Live Game as a part of a group of players who used "opposite betting" to gain an unfair advantage. The casino acted correctly and within its Terms and Conditions, and the player is not eligible for winnings earned by playing in this way. The player used only funds won from the No Deposit Bonus, without making any real deposit. The complaint was reopened and closed as unjustified.

The player from United Kingdom has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, the payment seems to be delayed. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played and lost before the withdrawal got approved.

The player from Germany has been trying to close the account due to a gambling problem. Unfortunately, all the enquiries were ignored. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from United Kingdom has deposited money into casino account, but the funds seem to be lost. The deposit appeared in the player's account a few days later, but the amount was lower than expected. We rejected the complaint beause the fees were applied from the side of the player's bank.

The player from United Kingdom has requested withdrawals less than a week ago. They have been pending since. Based on supporting evidence we closed this complaint as resolved even without player’s confirmation.

The player from Portugal is having difficulties withdrawing winnings due to incomplete verification. After resending a video, the player was able to complete the verification and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Ireland has self-excluded from sister casino. Now he is asking for a deposit refund. The player didn't provide any proof that he requested self-exclusion from this casino before depositing, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from United Kingdom has been accused of opening duplicate accounts. Admittedly, they have opened two different accounts. The casino managed to sort out the problem and the player received their winnings. The complaint is now resolved.

The player from United Kingdom has deposited money into casino account but the funds seem to be lost. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player requested self-exclusion by sending an e-mail to the casino, but the casino informed us that the player's e-mail was never received. The player wasn't able to provide sufficient evidence to prove that they had sent the e-mail and was advised to contact the Licensing Authority of the casino after which there were no further updates from the player. We rejected this complaint because the player stopped responding to our messages.

The player from the United Kingdom has been trying to self-exclude from the casino. The inquiry has been accepted first, but later the account was reopened again. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified.

The player from United Kingdom deposited money into their account via Bitcoin but a portion of the funds seemed to have gotten lost. The complaint was resolved. It became clear that there was a problem with the wallet. The casino credited the player's account with the lost deposits and with an extra €1000 as a goodwill gesture.

The player from Estonia is experiencing difficulties depositing and withdrawing funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.