Sporni iznos je u DOGE, ali nisam mogao da pronađem tu valutu u padajućem meniju.
11. aprila 2025. godine, uplatio sam 1174 DOGE na svoj kazino račun i nastavio sa klađenjem iznosa koji je premašio ovaj depozit. Prilikom pokušaja podizanja 771,78 DOGE, naišao sam na neočekivana ograničenja koja je nametnuo operater.
Primetno je da se nisam prijavio niti zatražio bonus na depozit; ipak me je operater obavestio da mora biti ispunjen značajan uslov klađenja pre nego što mi je dozvoljeno da unovčim novac. Prema korisničkoj službi, kazino zahteva od igrača da ulože svoj depozit najmanje tri puta na slotovima ili deset puta na stolovima/igrama uživo pre bilo kakve isplate. Objašnjenje je dato iz razloga sprečavanja pranja novca (AML).
Industrijski standardi obično uključuju uslov jednokratnog klađenja pre isplate, što zahtev za proigravanje ovog kazina čini preteranim i netipičnim.
Pažljivim pregledom, otkrio sam neupadljiv pasus u uslovima korišćenja usluga operatera, zakopan unutar klauzule „10. Politika protiv prevara", u kojem se navodi zahtev za uplatu depozita tri puta na slotovima ili deset puta na stolovima/igrama uživo. Time što je smeštena u odeljak o prevarama u uslovima, umesto da bude eksplicitno istaknuta, odredba mora biti namerno prikrivena kako bi se igrači primorali da igraju više nego što su možda nameravali.
Pored toga, kazino koji pripisuje ove zahteve za klađenje merama za sprečavanje pranja novca je nelogično i neopravdano. Konkretno, nema smisla da igre na stolu zahtevaju znatno veći zahtev za igranje nego slotovi kako bi se sprečilo pranje novca.
Jedina svrha prikrivene i prekomerne odredbe o igranju kroz igru izgleda da je da kazino može da zaradi više novca.
Uprkos dodatnim klađenjima od 11. aprila, korisnička služba me je više puta obaveštavala da se moj zahtev za klađenje u apsolutnim brojevima povećao, a ne smanjio, što deluje izuzetno čudno. Štaviše, samostalna provera istorije klađenja je nemoguća nakon 28. aprila 2025. godine, jer je istorija ograničena na prikazivanje samo poslednje odigranih igara.
Ako je odredba u uslovima korišćenja izuzetno nepovoljna za igrača (pojedinačnog potrošača), u suprotnosti sa industrijskim standardima i prikriveno uvučena u nepovezani deo uslova, ta odredba se mora smatrati ništavnom (kao što je mišljenje prema ugovornom pravu većine zemalja).
The contested amount is in DOGE, but I was not able to find that currency in the drop-down menu.
On April 11, 2025, I deposited 1174 DOGE into my casino account and proceeded to wager an amount exceeding this deposit. When attempting to withdraw 771.78 DOGE, I encountered unexpected restrictions imposed by the operator.
Notably, I did not opt in, nor claim any deposit bonus; yet the operator informed me that a sizeable wagering condition had to be met before I was allowed to cash out. According to customer service, the casino requires players to wager their deposit at least three times on slots or ten times on table/live games prior to any withdrawal. The explanation given was AML (Anti-Money Laundering) reasons.
Industry standards commonly include a one-time wagering condition prior to withdrawal, making this casino's play-through requirement excessive and atypical.
Upon careful review, I discovered an inconspicuous paragraph in the operator's terms of service, buried within clause '10. Anti-fraud policy', stating the requirement of wagering deposits three times on slots or ten times on table/live games. By being placed within the fraud section of the terms rather than being explicitly highlighted, the provision must be willfully concealed to force players to play more than they might have intended to.
Additionally, the casino attributing these wagering requirements to AML measures is illogical and unjustified. Specifically, it makes no sense that table games would require a significantly higher play-through requirement than slots to prevent money laundering.
The only purpose of the covert and excessive play-through provision seems to be so that the casino can make more money.
Despite additional wagering since April 11, customer service has repeatedly informed me that my wagering requirement in absolute numbers has increased rather than decreased, which seems exceptionally strange. Furthermore, verifying the wagering history by myself is impossible beyond April 28, 2025, since the history is limited to showing only the most recently played games.
If a provision in the terms of service is exceptionally disadvantageous for the player (individual consumer), at odds with industry standards, and covertly snuck in within an unrelated section of the terms, that provision has to be considered null and void (as is the view per most countries' contract law).
Automatski prevedeno: