SuperBoss Casino Review

The player from Greece had deposited with a card, won, and completed the required KYC. However, the casino had stipulated that withdrawal was only possible via crypto, which included making a new deposit and several unclear requirements. The player had been unsatisfied as they were unfamiliar with crypto transactions and the casino's withdrawal options did not include methods the player was familiar with. The casino had responded, clarifying that the player didn't need to deposit via crypto and that they were working on enabling bank transfer withdrawals for Greek players. The player had then successfully set up their crypto account and confirmed that their issue had been resolved.

The player from Russia had complained about an issue with Superboss Casino where he had requested for account closure and withdrawal of his funds due to financial troubles. However, the casino had refused the request due to a $112 bonus that had been granted to the player, with conditions to bet $11,000 before withdrawing the money. The player had wished to cancel the bonus and withdraw his own money. The casino had agreed to cancel the bonus but stated that only the deposit amount would be refunded. The player had claimed that he hadn't played since December and his balance was $841, but the casino only refunded his last deposit of $199. The casino had explained that the rest of the balance consisted of bonus funds, which were not eligible for refund. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with this outcome, but the Complaints Team had supported the casino's decision, stating that the casino had acted according to its established rules. The complaint had been categorized as rejected due to being an unjustified complaint.

The player from Netherlands had won 1,646€, made two confirmed withdrawal requests of 500€ each but noticed his balance had incorrectly increased during gameplay. He ended up playing and losing this, which he believed should have been blocked by the casino, and was then seeking payment of his confirmed withdrawal. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's handling of his withdrawal and account balance. However, we had concluded that the player was aware of the funds being reinstated into his account during gameplay. As such, we were unable to assist in recovering the funds and had to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Poland had won $3,300 and had attempted to withdraw the funds to their e-wallet. However, SuperBoss Casino had suspected their account of cheating, which the player had denied. Despite having been verified and possessing a long history of reliable online gambling, the withdrawal had been pending and was potentially delayed for up to 21 days. The player had expressed concerns about the casino's delay tactics. After 14 days, the casino had paid out the winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been closed.

A player from the United Kingdom deposited beyond their set limit after the casino's live chat advised turning off the limit. The player claims the casino ignored the 24-hour cooling-off period rule. The player has asked for today's deposits back and self-excluded right away. The complaint was closed based on the player's request.

The player from Portugal had made a €300 deposit via Rapid Transfer to SuperBoss Casino which was deducted from his Santander account, but the funds did not appear in his casino account. We had advised the player to allow one month for the payment provider to investigate, extending the complaint's timer to accommodate this timeframe. However, the player did not respond to further communication, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of player feedback.

The player from Latvia had initially made several deposits with no success. After receiving enticing offers via e-mail and WhatsApp from the casino, they had made more deposits and successfully won around 15000. This win had led to an account verification request which subsequently resulted in the account being blocked due to the alleged existence of a duplicate account. The player had insisted that they were unfairly accused of having multiple accounts, a claim the casino used to withhold their winnings. After a series of communications and a video call verification, the casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts associated with the player's account. The player had been unable to accurately answer some crucial questions during the verification call. We had found the casino's actions to be in compliance with its terms and conditions and we could not disagree with the casino's final decision. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Australia deposited $50 AUD and was added a bonus they didn't request. The casino management was not available to immediately remove the bonus and now the player is demanding a full refund, believing they have been subjected to unfair tactics. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Montenegro describes receiving communication about non-deposit bonuses, but when logging in to the site, found their account marked as 'multi-account'. The casino hasn't provided any proof of multiple accounts nor explained the reason behind it. The issue has been resolved successfully.