The burden should never fall on a player to decide whether BC.Game’s marketing is genuine or a mistake. If player receives emails saying “We’ve missed you at BC.Game, and we’ve got something exciting to welcome you back,” the only reasonable assumption is that it is a real offer tied to your account.

BC.Game’s own explanation shows the flaw. They claim suspicion arose because OP received eleven bonus emails despite only one deposit in April, with some sent weekly. That is not a player issue. If their marketing system sends repeated offers to someone they think should not be eligible, the failure is on BC.Game, not the player.

Clause 15.1 of their ToS only highlights the problem. “Set up incorrectly” and “bonus abuse” are undefined, and the phrase “solely determined by BC.Game” gives them unilateral power to void any bonus after the fact. That makes their promotions illusory.

What makes this worse is the shifting explanations. First OP was accused of bonus abuse. Then it was multi-accounting. Now it is too many offers for too few deposits. At some point these are not miscommunications between departments. They are conflicting stories used to avoid paying.

The fact that OP needs an intermediary to even get the case re-reviewed shows how little transparency players get directly. That is a serious red flag about how BC.Game operates and handles disputes.

If McDonald’s sends a customer weekly coupons for a free Big Mac even though customer has not dined there in a year, it is not proper for them to refuse customer the hamburger when customer finally shows up with the coupon. The same logic applies here. Players cannot be punished for acting on the offers that BC.Game itself sent them.

There’s no point trying to make sense of BC.Game's explanations. They are dishonest. If your account of what happened is accurate, you are owed 100 USDT. Hard to believe such a small amount is even in dispute. I’ve played at small, no-name casinos that offered a "no deposit" $200 free chip (upon sign up) with tough rollover requirements, and even those paid as promised. With BC.Game, there’s always problems.

Be patient. Holy Darkness is your only real chance of getting the 100 USDT or a proper explanation for why it’s withheld. Their support team is useless. They will lie or ignore you until the ball drops in Times Square ringing in 2026. Not surprising that page 1 of “Scam Accusations” on Bitcointalk shows 36 topics and 9 topics pertain to BC.Game. That 25% is no coincidence.

Like many online casinos, does Roobet maintain its own bet history separate from Evolution’s game history? If so, does Roobet’s version reflect the $2,260 adjustment?

Looking at the Craps history, are these two bet payouts possible under normal craps odds?

$445 bet → $421.66. On a $445 bet, valid profits should be 518.83 (6/8 at 7:6), 623 (5/9 at 7:5), or 801 (4/10 at 9:5). A profit of 421.66 isn’t a valid outcome.

$400 bet → $580. Valid profits would be 466.67, 560, or 720. 580 doesn’t match any standard craps payout.

Just to clarify, Evolution Craps is live dealer, while Evolution First Person Blackjack is a digital RNG game. If Blackjack had a technical malfunction, the round should have been voided with a refund at the time. Retroactive clawbacks on RNG games are uncommon unless there’s proven malfunction or fraud. Live games are far more prone to review errors. Since post-settlement RNG errors are rare, Roobet’s “system error” claim likely relates to Craps. Either way, they owe the player a clear explanation for why $2,260 was deducted.

Despite a nearly 3 month dispute with BC.Game, I still received 8 emails between July and September offering “no deposit” bonuses from $50 to $250. These were tailored to my account history and promised “100% free, no deposit required.”



In OP’s case, he cleared rollover, requested withdrawal, and BC.Game locked his account for “bonus abuse” under a vague clause giving them final authority. They keep the losing sessions but void the winning ones.

If “bonus abuse” means the bonus was too high compared to deposits, BC.Game knew that before sending the offer. Retroactive punishment is predatory.

Absent any evidence of misconduct in actual gameplay, OP is entitled to payout. Locking an account over 100 USDT after sending targeted promos is not legitimate. It appears these offers function as bait, not real promotions, if BC.Game can unilaterally cancel them.

Reputable casinos that value player retention and fairness will credit a player’s account (upon the first mistake) when possible. I was new to Gamdom this week and sent $30 in USDC to Gamdom from a casino I no longer use. I hadn’t noticed Gamdom’s higher minimum deposit for USDC. The transfer failed, but when I contacted support, they explained why and, as a courtesy, credited my account for the full amount.

I'm no fan or advocate of BC.Game, but the concern you raise was my first thought too. OP told his VIP Host about his gambling issues nearly a year ago and expected the host to act, like triggering self-exclusion. What I know for certain is that BC.Game has tools players can use themselves to initiate timeouts or self-exclusion. Ignoring those tools, accepting a bonus from the host, and continuing to play until now, right before lodging this scam accusation, doesn't quite add up.

At less reputable casinos, hosts and even support agents do dangle bonuses when players ask to self-exclude or take a break. From what I’ve seen, that usually happens and is more problematic where players don’t have the ability to initiate self-exclusion on their own through the website.

Edit: After re-reading OP's post, I’ve softened my position. The outcome here could depend on the nature of OP’s correspondence with the host. If OP cited severe distress, admitted to gambling addiction, and explicitly asked for help, that may place some responsibility on the host to act, even though BC.Game provides tools for players to initiate a break or self-exclusion on their own. That said, the fact that these "self-help" tools are relatively easy to find and OP chose to keep playing for a long period still weighs heavily against OP.

Thank you for your efforts in facilitating this matter. After the detailed private discussions, I acknowledge that the matter has been resolved in a manner satisfactory to me. I will consider this case closed and will proceed to lock the thread.

I understand the desire to secure BC.Game's "official" response following their internal investigation, despite the fact that they have already given their position on Casino Guru, Trustpilot, and by email. That said, I have concerns about what is realistically expected from them in light of the evidence I submitted on June 19.

The chart below lists nine (9) separate pieces of evidence, many of which still exist in my BC.Game or Gmail account today. What exactly is the expectation of BC.Game’s response? Is it that they will attempt to disprove the authenticity of each of these items, even though they originate from their own system and communications? Can internal "system records" generated and provided months later, alleging June 26 as the loss limits date, reasonably carry more weight or credibility than evidence submitted to mediators within hours of the June 19 loss limit failure?

We are now 78 days into this matter overall and 14 days since holydarkness first reached his contact at BC.Game Support. In all that time BC.Game has produced nothing. Instead, they stall, shift their story, and hope I give up or mediators close the case as unresolved.

Here is how their story has shifted after I filed my complaint on June 19.  Mind you, these claims are despite distinct June 19 chat transcripts with BC.Game support agents MarkoU, Eone and Dragana, all confirming my loss limits were active on June 19.

**July 30: BC.Game claims on Casino Guru, I did not have loss limits active on June 19, only on June 26.
**August 15: BC.Game adds to their provably false narrative, claiming the June 19 loss limit lockout notification I received was actually a self-exclusion lockout notification.
**August 21: Through the Casino Guru mediator, BC.Game claims “system records” indicate my limits were not set correctly on the date I mentioned.
**September 5: After claiming on August 15 that i was in a self-exclusion period on June 19, BC.Game claims publicly on Trustpilot that after a self-exclusion cooldown period expires, betting limits and deposit options become active again.  Any funds lost during this period are the responsibility of the player.  It's exactly as you suggested Rating Place, BC.Game will set forth all sorts of irrelevant information to try to and distract from and cloud the real issue.

They also flagged my Trustpilot review as “defamatory.” Trustpilot reviewed it within minutes and confirmed it was not.




BC.Game deceives players, rejects accountability, and tries to censor negative feedback.

Thank you for the reply. I’m sure you can understand that my frustration and impatience would be much lower if this had started on August 21, when you offered to help. I do appreciate that gesture. Unfortunately, for me this began on June 19 when the loss limits failed and I filed a complaint on Casino Guru. I even created my Bitcointalk account and made my first post on June 21 in an effort to bring awareness and push for resolution.

I take some optimism from your belief that they will eventually get back to you. What I see as stalling based on my experience, you see as due diligence, and that’s fair. But with any case, the time allowed to investigate cannot be indefinite without raising serious concerns.

I again offer the option for you to view the evidence directly inside my BC.Game account. That would remove any question about the authenticity of what I’ve posted. With that issue off the table, it becomes clear how implausible BC.Game’s position is that loss limits were set on June 26. It would also give you stronger context for assessing whatever explanation or verdict they provide once they complete their investigation.

Back on August 25, you mentioned BC.Game should have given you a verdict by August 24. Then on August 28, you noted they needed more time to check with all departments and do a second reconsideration. As of today, September 3, and with September 5 marking two weeks since you reached out to your contact, do you have any sense of whether BC.Game will cooperate or provide a legitimate response within the next 7 days?

Given their history of refusing to cooperate with responsible gambling tools complaints, I want to know if their latest reply is still just “please give us more time.” When was the last time they gave you any response at all on this matter? Do you find it concerning that in the Brazilian player’s case for $572, they did not even bother to give an explanation or response in 42 days before Casino Guru closed the complaint as unresolved?

I appreciate you continuing to keep this case active.

A Casino Guru complaint filed by a player from Brazil on July 21 was closed today as unresolved after 42 days because BC.Game Support refused to cooperate. The player’s situation was similar to mine, involving a failure of the casino’s loss limit tool. The disputed amount was even smaller than mine. The player only sought 3,117 R$ (about $572 USD), yet BC.Game Support still stonewalled and refused to provide a single response.



The complaint can be found here: https://casino.guru/complaints/bc-game-casino-player-s-loss-due-to-system-failure

This shows a clear pattern. Even when the stakes are as low as a few hundred dollars, BC.Game Support refuses to engage, ignores evidence, and counts on complaints being closed unresolved. If they behave like this over $572, what hope does any player have when the amounts are larger?

Hello holydarkness. Is there any update from your contact following the weekend on when we can expect to receive any feedback on this case?

I feel I have a strong case with solid evidence. Approaching 3 months dealing with BC.Game while they have either stalled or defended themselves with positions that are outrageous and provably false has definitely caused some frustration and impatience on my part.  It surprised and concerned me that you said after first reading my case, there were issues that bugged you but that you were reserving those thoughts until BC.Game provides their evidence. I already sent you a PM over the weekend to apologize if I suggested last week you were not neutral because of that statement. At this point, several of my messages and posts to you have gone unanswered. Please let me know whether you have abandoned my case so I can have clarity going forward. Thanks.

Despite 72 days of BC.Game’s non-cooperation with Casino Guru and the fact that we are now on the 12th calendar day since holydarkness first reached out to his contact, all we can do is be patient, trust his process, and see if it delivers a better result than CG.

In all honesty, it is challenging to stay optimistic when BC.Game’s position is comparable to:

1. A bank saying I didn’t deposit a check until June 26, even though my online account shows it was credited on June 19 with their teller’s initials on it; or

2. A hospital claiming I wasn’t admitted until June 26, even though the medical chart (kept by their own nurses) shows vitals recorded on June 19 while I was lying in their bed.

thanks to JollyGood for pointing out that I accidentally locked the topic. that was completely unintentional on my part!

We must wait for BC.Game’s side of the story, even though they have already given it directly to me by email, through their representative on Casino Guru, and on Trustpilot in response to my reviews. Their version has not changed:




Given their stalling and the stance they have maintained, what more is really expected from them now?

The problem is not authentication of my evidence. It still resides in my BC.Game account. Their position is that their internal “system records” contradict evidence available in my account on their own website.

Here are just a few pieces of evidence still visible in my account today:

June 19

1. Chat with support agent Johny, notifying him (before the loss limit failures) that I had placed loss limits on my account:




2. Chats with three support agents, MarkoU, Eone, and Dragana, all confirming I had loss limits in place on June 19:




August 15

1. Chat with support agent Turus, who admits loss limits do not work in real time, that BC.Game is aware of the issue, and that the development team is working on future improvements:




2. Chat with support agent Steven, who admits I had loss limits in place on June 19, then tries to walk it back by claiming the lockout message was self-exclusion. He says my self-exclusion lasted from May 19 to June 19, while also conceding I deposited 1000 USDC and played on June 19. Despite that impossibility, he insists I was still under self-exclusion on June 19, and that the notification I received was simply advising me I could resume playing on June 20:



Casino Guru closed the complaint after 72 days as unresolved, citing BC.Game’s lack of cooperation. Now the expectation is to wait for their investigation from various departments, even though they have maintained the same position all along. The evidence above (and more) remains accessible in my account.

If BC.Game fabricates internal records, will that be taken at face value over the evidence in my account? That remains to be seen.

Hey BC.Game Support! Why won't your representative respond to the thread below? I have today red flagged both the BC.Game accounts. Please resolve this matter that has dragged on for 72 days now.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5556232.0

**As holydarkness is a member with strong trust on this forum, I invite him to view my BC.Game account with me present (via Zoom, Google Meet, or Discord) so he can independently verify that the evidence of my June 19 loss limits still resides there. Anonymity for both parties can be maintained. This removes any doubt about the authenticity of my screenshots, since the proof can be seen live and in real time. At that point, BC.Game will need to explain why it has been independently and conclusively verified that loss limits were activated on June 19, not June 26 as they shamelessly claim.**

---

After 72 days with the BC.Game complaint, Casino Guru has closed the case as “unresolved” because BC.Game refuses to cooperate or provide the replies and evidence needed for resolution. I have sent messages to Kubo and to leadership on CG’s Complaints Team, urging them to keep the complaint open while I also pursue avenues through Bitcointalk. Closing the complaint gives BC.Game exactly what they wanted all along: the complaint gets archived and they take only a minor hit to their CG Safety Index.

Case summary from CG Mediator Kubo:
The player from Mexico filed a complaint against BC.Game Casino for a failure of their Responsible Gambling tools, specifically the daily loss limit, which did not activate as intended, resulting in significant losses of $1,661 USDC. Despite proactively enabling the limit and notifying support, he was allowed to place unrestricted bets, leading him to request a refund of 1,500 USDC for losses exceeding the set limit.

The Complaints Team acknowledged the complexity of the issue due to conflicting evidence from the casino regarding the activation date of the loss limits. However, after extensive communication and despite the player's substantial documentation, the casino's responses became infrequent, and the matter could not progress without their cooperation. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unresolved, with the potential for reopening if the casino decided to engage further.

CG's Message to Me:
Dear ptaylor78,

Unfortunately, we’ve reached a point where keeping your complaint open is no longer productive. Based on our previous experience with handling complaints involving BC.Game Casino, I had hoped we could make progress. However, despite receiving some additional details and evidence from the casino representative, they have not provided responses to my follow-up inquiries, which were essential for moving forward with our investigation.

As communication from the casino has ceased, I’m unable to offer you a suitable resolution without their cooperation.

For now, I must close this complaint as unresolved.

I completely understand this is not a satisfactory outcome. However, please note that unresolved complaints negatively impact the casino’s rating, which may encourage them to adopt a more cooperative approach in the future. Should the casino decide to respond, we will gladly reopen the complaint and you will be notified via email.

I’m truly sorry we could not provide a better resolution in this case.

Best Regards,
Kubo

---

So where does that leave us? For 72 days BC.Game evaded Casino Guru through stalling and dishonesty. They provided no public evidence and simply insisted that loss limits were activated on June 26 rather than June 19, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Efforts will continue to have the CG complaint reopened, but the matter is now with @holydarkness in hopes of reaching a resolution. @holydarkness has handled the case since August 21 and has contacted BC.Game, but so far no cooperation has been secured and only requests from BC.Game for additional time to review. I remain hopeful we can get answers and reach the truth of the matter.

One must ask, if $1500 is such a small amount for BC.Game to resolve, and they truly have evidence that no loss limits were set on June 19, why prolong this case for so long instead of simply providing that evidence, so the case can be definitively closed?