SuperBoss Casino Review

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.

The player from Kuwait had requested a permanent account closure due to gambling issues. Despite this, the casino had reactivated his account upon request, leading to a loss of 12,000 CAD. The player had provided the necessary evidence of his self-exclusion request. The casino acknowledged their mistake in reactivating the player's account and agreed to refund the deposits made after the self-exclusion request. After some delay, the player had confirmed receipt of the refund. The complaint had been resolved successfully.

The player from Russia has an issue with a bet on the Football Manager slot. Despite the game history indicating a winning bet and a provided file suggesting the correct calculation, the casino logs show a lost bet and he did not receive his profits. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from Greece made a withdrawal of 220 euros. Despite completing the verification procedure, the casino continues to reject the payout, claiming they need to check if the winnings were acquired fairly. The player did not answer to our comments and questions, therefore, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from India 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 Latvia had his account blocked due to accusations of opening multiple accounts. We rejected the complaint because the player breached the casino's T&Cs by opening multiple accounts, which the casino proved with relevant evidence.

The player from Italy requested several withdrawals via bank transfer less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The withdrawal requests kept getting rejected by the payment provider. While the withdrawals were pending, the player activated a VIP bonus and during wagering, he lost funds from pending withdrawals that were still shown on his playable balance. After changing the payment method, the casino paid the player out. However, he did not receive the funds he lost when playing with bonus. The player was dissatisfied that he could play with money he requested for withdrawal and wanted a compensation. Although the casino provided him with a no-deposit bonus, this was not an acceptable solution. Since the player got the remaining part of his winnings, we rejected the complaint and recommended the player contact the gaming authority.

The player's winnings bets were not credited for an unknown reason. The casino confirmed that there was a general error - known as a latency timeout problem and that they have credited his lost bets to the account along with compensation. Since we assume that he no longer needs help, we consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Greece won in a casino from a deposit bonus, but his winnings were reduced. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence suggesting that the max win cap was applied correctly.

The player's account got blocked during the verification process. The casino informed us that the player had multiple accounts, but after further investigation, they reactivated his account and asked for additional verification of the payment method. Once the verification was complete, the player was allowed to withdraw his funds and informed us that some of the withdrawals had already been paid, but there was a limitation related to separate transaction amounts, so the withdrawal process was going to take a little longer. When the casino confirmed that all the withdrawals were successfully processed, the player was asked to provide us with an update and confirmation. However, there was no update provided by the player for more than 2 weeks. Based on the all provided information, we consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Australia is asking for a deposit refund because the casino allowed him to create an account from a restricted country. Since the player lost all their deposits and then asked for self-exclusion, we were forced to reject this complaint.

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

The player from Netherlands has been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds. Subsequently, all the funds were played and lost. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played before we could intervene.