Ybets Casino Review

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money hadn't been received yet. The delay was due to the need for a manual check of the gaming session, as the winnings were from a no deposit bonus. The issue was resolved after the player persistently contacted the casino, and the funds were fully paid out. We marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Poland had requested a withdrawal on June 29th but had not received the money after two weeks. Despite contacting the casino, they kept stating they were working on it without any progress. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, which led to a review of the player's account and ultimately confirmed that the withdrawal request could proceed. The payment was successfully processed, and the player confirmed receipt of their funds, resulting in the complaint being marked as resolved.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal two weeks ago, but it had not been processed since July 12. Despite having completed the KYC process and submitted all necessary documents on July 17, the cashout was still not possible. The delay was due to the game session being sent to the game provider for verification. Once the verification was completed, the winnings were credited to the player's account. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Ireland claimed the casino falsely advertised a 20% cashback on all deposits within 24 hours. Despite numerous emails and follow-ups, the player received only excuses about technical issues and lack of management, resulting in delayed cashback. The casino stated that the daily cashback was not claimed in time but was added as an exception, and a technical glitch delayed the weekly cashback, which has now been credited. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Greece had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. The delay was due to a pending KYC verification, which the player completed after being informed by the casino. Once the verification was successfully passed, the player received their winnings. The complaint was resolved as the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from the United Kingdom faced long wait times for withdrawals at the casino, with no email updates and repeated templated responses from support despite only playing slots and live casino games. We requested the player to wait 14 days before submitting a complaint and asked for details about the withdrawal request. The casino confirmed the withdrawal was approved and paid out. However, without confirmation from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Canada had $16,425.00 USD confiscated by Ybets.io. Despite fulfilling the wagering requirements of a VIP bonus and converting it to real money, the casino first placed withdrawal restrictions, then froze the account, and finally confiscated additional winnings, claiming they stemmed from the bonus. The player sought assistance in retrieving his funds. After reviewing the case, we concluded that the player's winnings should not have been confiscated since the bonus terms were met and the funds were converted to real money. Following our intervention, the casino agreed to credit the player's account with the confiscated amount.

The player from Germany was concerned that a casino holding his €5500 winnings was delaying and denying his KYC verification. Despite being advertised as a no-KYC casino, they asked for his documents. He submitted them, but after 10 days of waiting without any updates, he was informed that the KYC process wasn't successful and his account had been closed without further explanation. The Complaints Team attempted to gather more information and invited the casino to explain. However, due to the player's lack of response, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Tunisia had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had expressed frustration over the casino's delay in processing his withdrawal request, suggesting it was a strategy to make him play more and lose his winnings. The casino, on the other hand, had explained that his game session was sent to the provider for verification and that the player decided to play with his winnings, resetting his balance to zero. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, we had to reject the complaint because the player lost his winnings by choosing to play again before the verification process was completed.

The player from Malta had deposited 1000 USDT to Inmerion and had requested a withdrawal of 1563.7 USDT. Despite having contacted support multiple times over a month, the withdrawal had not been processed. The casino had failed to provide an explanation for the delay. After we intervened, the casino responded that the delay had been due to the game provider verifying the player's game session. Despite this, we had to reject the complaint as it involved sports betting, an area outside our jurisdiction.

The player from Germany, after registering and achieving a large win, faced delayed withdrawal. The casino, which advertised quick withdrawals and no KYC checks, requested documents for verification and subsequently cancelled the player's withdrawal. The player claimed this was an intentional act by the casino to make him lose his winnings. He also claimed that the casino's advertising of 'NO KYC' was misleading. The casino responded by stating that they had the right to carry out additional KYC procedures for any withdrawal and that the player's game session was under review due to unusual activity. The player then gambled away all his winnings and threatened legal action against the casino. We concluded that the player was responsible for his account and wagers, and his impatience led to the loss of his winnings. The complaint was thus rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom reported that his account had been suspended and winnings confiscated due to alleged "Opposite betting and potential Cashback abuse," which he denied. He noted that his winnings mostly came from playing Crazy Time and had difficulty understanding how he could engage in opposite betting with this game. The casino claimed that the player engaged in opposite betting with another player on three separate occasions, which they considered to be a violation of their rules. After reviewing the evidence and discussing with both parties, we determined that the fairest resolution was for the player to receive payment of all funds, minus any winning amounts from the questionable bets. The casino agreed to this resolution and refunded the player $79. The player confirmed receipt of the refund, marking the issue as resolved.

The player from Portugal had claimed that he had won a slot game at the online casino, but the system had refreshed and erased his winnings. However, he was unable to provide any supporting evidence as he had deleted his account after the casino had dismissed his complaint. The casino, upon investigation with the game provider, confirmed that the player's win was only $0.70. Based on this information, we had to reject the player's complaint due to lack of evidence supporting his claim.

The player from Romania had made a withdrawal after two deposits, but the withdrawal was cancelled 12 hours later. The casino had requested KYC documents. The player had provided all the necessary documents. The casino had confirmed that the documents were reviewed and approved, but the game session was forwarded to the game provider for further examination, which could have taken up to 14 days. However, the player later requested to close his account, and the casino complied. The player did not respond to our messages, therefore we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Russia had been waiting for a withdrawal for 5 days and also reported that his bonuses disappeared on Pragmatic Play. He was unable to get sufficient information regarding his withdrawal and lost bonuses from the casino. Despite the player's claim that he hadn't engaged in sports betting during this time, the casino explained that his account was closed due to fraudulent activities detected by their sports provider. Although the player's balance was capped after casino activities, the initial problem occurred during sports betting, which fell outside our jurisdiction. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint, though we offered to contact the casino for more information.

The player from Hungary had requested a withdrawal of $5240 over a month ago. Despite Inmerion being a "No KYC" casino, the player had submitted the necessary documents for the KYC process. However, the player had experienced a 30-day delay with no specific answers or updates. Upon contacting the Complaints Team, they had reached out to Inmerion Casino for clarification. The casino had acknowledged the delay, attributing it to issues with their provider and had promised a prompt resolution. After 43 days since the initiation of the KYC process, the player confirmed that his KYC had been approved and he was able to withdraw his balance, thereby resolving the issue.

The player from Portugal had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received at that time. Despite this, the player had been advised by the Complaints Team to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawals before submitting a complaint. The player later confirmed that they had received both of their withdrawals. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Pennsylvania had complained about a delayed withdrawal of 10372.08 USD in Bitcoin from Inmerion Casino. Despite having sent KYC documents and being verified, the casino had cited that they were waiting to hear back from the provider. The casino later revealed that the player's account had violated their geo-restrictions policy, as the player resided in the US, a restricted country. Despite our argument that the casino should have prevented the player from registering in the first place, the casino insisted on adhering to their Terms and Conditions. The casino had agreed to refund the player's original deposits and claimed to have done so. However, the player did not confirm receipt of the refund, and we were unable to investigate further due to lack of response from the player. The complaint was therefore rejected.