Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here and what Razer previously meant was that you've got your initial deposit even before you made this situation known and he addressed it. May I see your Revolut's deposit history?

I've sent Razer a follow up PM yesterday, I'll prefer to wait for a couple more days before shooting him another, if he hadn't reply me before that.

Not sure if they allow to receive PM from newbies [nor if the sender got notified by forum's system if their PM gets bumped]. I'll advise you to post a complain on CG, not make a thread on their forum, as it'll contribute to a bigger possibility of your situation get resolved.

Once you submitted that complain, I'll try to urge their team to look into it and address it. Hopefully, you'll be able to get a resolution with this method.

OP, I'll ask you again to kindly provide the link to your complaint to CG or AG, or at least give us a follow ups to which third party you escalated this case to. I just from CG and AG, and still can't find your complaint there. Given that it's also been around three weeks since you're last online, without further update, I can't help but consider what Betcoin's representative explained here hold a major weight and you're no longer interested to chase the accusation. As such, I'll mark this as resolved. Please let me know.

---

Edit:
[23.03.2024] As it's been long since OP's being active, and given their inactivity follows an explanation from betcoin's representative, and that even though they said they'll escalate it to an arbitrator yet up to this second I can't find any of it although I've checked both AskGamblers and CasinoGuru from time to time, I can't help but conclude that they're no longer interested to pursue the case, that betcoin's explanation actually covered the truth and, having their attempt to raise a case thwarted, they lose their interest. As such, I am marking this as resolved.

Bitcointalk Account: holydarkness
My vote goes to: GazetaBitcoin, Despairo, Helena Yu, Crypto Library

I'm about to reach Razer to ask him about some matter being involved in other thread. If you can tell us your Rollbit username once you read this post, I can relay that information to Razer together with my other inquiry so he can start escalating your investigation.

Otherwise, once you come back online, please provide the username, I'll shoot him a PM containing that info.

I'm... confused. Is this you saying that you finally managed to be on a video call verification with them and they denied you or were you saying you're still waiting for their link? If it's the later, I can try to reach them through PM and urge them to clear this headache. If it's the former... well, I'll ask you to kindly elaborate more on what happened during that call.

I have to say that, yes, it might point to something suspicious, but maybe they're trying to adhere to their user's privacy policy. I think [based from other thread] they're trying a new approach to protect their user's sensitive information as best as they can, although the evidence they have might be helpful for them to validate their decision.

Nonetheless, coming back to your situation, I gave it another spin and it came to my awareness that you're betting on minor league [as per BC's explanation] and it happened about one year ago. As such, even if they provide the betting history here, we might be unable to track the validity of their accusation --prohibited techniques, which I assume will be late betting, value betting, odds manipulation, arbing, and the likes-- due to the less-than-popular nature of the matches of which you placed your bets, that made it most likely hard to find the record to validate or invalidate their counter-accusation.

In the past, I and other members of the forum help invalidated a counter-accusation by a casino of late betting, but that's done on a major league, and within days of the match, of which we still need to find a way to get the record to match it with the accusation. I honestly don't think we can replicate the investigation with minor league, happened about a year ago.

As such, do you perhaps want to consider CG? They probably have more ways than what we have in our arsenal to check past matches and investigate the allegation. Not to mention that due to the nature of the evidence provided on CG --where sensitive info can be set as private, for the participating parties only-- BC probably more than willing to cooperate and provide your betting history.

Thank you for inviting me and bringing this to my attention. I tried to address to this thread and the invitation the second it came to my awareness, but I am currently swamped and it took me up to today to finally give this thread a thorough read... well, "thorough", given it seems the thread used to have way more [spamming] posts and it got deleted. I am not reading the archived version, as it apparently will be at least another page long. Perhaps later, when I have more time at hand.

With a warning that it'll be a long post, and that I am refraining from linking anything being referred in my post on behalf of keeping eye health of whoever read my post thoroughly [so they don't have to read another long threads], we are moving to the subject...


Not properly worded, this list of rights will easily backfire and get weaponized by the players.

Coming from someone who haunt the scam accusations board on daily basis, situation with casinos are not always occured because the casino is the bad actor. Though on many cases casinos are at fault and being difficult, a big portion of the scam accusations board actually filled by complaints from a cheating players who try to be sneaky and cried and asked for help because their abusive behavior were being detected. Some others are made by users with room temperature as their IQ. In Celsius.

For example, the very thread that prompt you to create this thread, it's about a player [the one who accuses the casino] who apparently is delusional enough [someone believe he fell a lot during his infancy] that he think the world revolves around him and whatever he wants, everyone must provide. Another case have a player who create a nuclear weapon using his disability, trying to wring casinos their money with his mental condition. Another one literally spammed the board and terrorize third-party arbitrator because a casino utilize two different format of provably fair and apparently have a founder whose father has a criminal record, amongst other mundane and baseless accusations.

That's three that easily coming off the top of my head, just to give a better understanding that at a casino industry, the casinos are not always the bad actor, there are a lot of people with malicious intent and agenda who try to milk a casino, and thus, if such a list of rights are about to be made, it should be crafted very carefully to prevent abuse and backfire, as well as to [surprisingly enough] protect the casino from the malicious players.

May I know what kind of list of rights you currently have in your mind? Just a rough draft, does not have to be the actual points that'll be realized on the final list, aside from the one below [that will have its own dissection] so I can give my opinion on how feasible it will be to compile and how likely it'll be to stay on a neutral ground.


In theory, this is doable, having a clause in the list-of-rights that said the casino clearly lists every condition that would enable them to freeze or seize assets as part of the registration and/or deposit process, thus implying that the player's future on that casino is somewhat guaranteed as long as they followed the rule. But... the condition itself is ever changing. Their ToS is updated from time to time, so unless you have a way to automatically detect an update on a casino ToS, it'll be a very heavy workload to check them from time to time.

Of course you can ask the casino to notify you when they made a change on their ToS, but will we be able to notify the players that casino A has updated their condition [that'll enable them to freeze assets], where the updated condition will specifically affect players who are this, this, and this?

To give a better image of what I'm talking about, one of the point that easily changed from time to time is restricted countries. For instance, Poland was not part of casino A's restricted country as per March 2024, and thus a player residing in Poland are allowed to play and are not breaching the agreed ToS, and the clause of list-of-rights saying as above is true. On April 2024, Poland become a restricted country on Casino A, which make the said player now in a breach of ToS, and according the the list-of-rights, Casino A are still true to the clause; they freeze the player's assets because the player played from restricted country.

In practice, they'll give a pop-up message on their page, or an email blast, informing every registered player that they've updated their ToS, and players who get affected by the updates are allowed to continue playing and withdraw all of their assets up to 31 March 2024. But there are instances where the pop-up didn't appear or the player didn't get the message. Who is at fault here and who will be held liable if the casino refuses to return player's fund?

Another factor worth weighting in, from time to time, player's assets got frozen, or part of it got seized, bets got cancelled, or other situations that caused a player to suffer a financial damage, some of it are due to a cause that is out of casino's will. Like a pending KYC verification [that took months] or the sportsbook provider's decision to cancel the bets. Can the casino be considered breaching the clause they agreed on the list-of-rights? Because, theoretically, they violated the clause by having their player's assets frozen, or an account became inaccessible for months, or some bets being voided, all of them are [arguably] a breach from the list-of-rights, since they put a player in a situation outside of the list of their conditions that allows them to freeze assets, yet they can't do much as [for instance] the bets are voided by the sportsbook's decision, not theirs. Will it be fair for the casino to bear the burden of blame and pay the voided bets out of their own pocket just to stay true to the list-of-rights?

Another interesting case that might worth considering, that there are factors outside of casino's control that made them unable to fulfill the clause [though it's clearly not the case of freezing assets, but still related to a condition where the player suffers financial loss] there was a player who deposited through FTX's wallet, was asked to fulfill KYC as part of AML/ATF act at one point and he decided to wait for a while, with a reason that he want to use that frozen assets as his emergency fund [if he performs the SoW level KYC and got the fund liquidated, he afraid he'll use it right away, so he used the opportunity to have an accidental emergency fund].

One year later, he performed the SoW level KYC, got his fund unfrozen and being sent to the originating address [sometimes casino send questionable funds back to the originating address instead of the address their player's asked as a second layer of security measure against AML], where FTX already collapsed and the wallet is no longer accessible. Effectively, the fund are sent to limbo.

In one perspective, the player is at fault because he did not perform KYC right away, which raised casino's suspicion and prompted them to perform the second layer of security [sending to the originating address], yet at the same time [as many argued on that case] the casino should ask whether the wallet is still accessible or not prior to sending, yet again, if the casino did so and the player said he no longer has access to the wallet, they violated their AML policy by facilitating a way for someone to launder money.

Under this situation, where do the list-of-rights stand?

And with those instances in hand, how far will the issuer of list-of-rights be held accountable and/or an accomplice to a case? They're the one issuing a certification. Disregarding the true nature of their case [remember, some players are coming with bad intent and malicious agenda], players may argue that they suffer a financial loss and become a victim to a casino because they trusted the certification given by the list-of-rights. As such, will the issuer of certification be held accountable to a certain degree of the damage? How big is their influence and wiggle room to determine who violated what?

Actually... the bets were not legit and clean, according to this post, and that the one made the ruling --at least the way I understand it-- was their sportsbook provider. Namely, the one conducting the investigation was the sportsbook provider and they are complying to the findings made by the sportsbook provider.

Far as I can gather, it shouldn't be a problem, they will credit you with your balance as long as the address are copied from the "receive" address you accessed from your cryptp page. To be sure, you don't see any incoming on your account? Let me try to reach Razer again later today to ask him to provide the txID

Nope, they took long to respond, I leave to take care other things, checked back when I had time, still unattended by their staff, I returned to handle my real-life matters, rinse and repeat until I came back to see they responded, I didn't reply for a while, and they close the ticket. I never get to be in touch and made any conversation with their live support.

But please, don't take my words for granted, see for yourself:

This is the entire chat history with their team. As evidenced, there's no other chat below "Ultra". Otherwise, it'll show what's depicted on the next screenshot [I'm on mobile, so the reason for there is a difference between the two is my device's orientation, serendipitily].



This is the entire conversation with "Ultra", happened roughly two weeks ago when I tried to get to know better about the existence of their limit feature, prior to you prompting me to try myself.



These are what happened recently, after you asked me to try asking them,

 





As you can see, on every occasions of me trying to reach them, I never managed to engage to a conversation, thus I never get their answer. This might surprise you, but contrary to what you seemingly believe, not everybody is ill-natured, some people here are sincere in trying to get to the bottom of cases. Not everybody is manipulative and try to hide the truth, cherry-picking facts to drive a narrative, some people here are simply trying to get to know things better and help resolving things.


The fact here is that there is no "responsible gambling policy". The responsible gambling on that page is a guide, and they are not liable for the misunderstanding you experienced, as I addressed lengthly above, of which you choose to ignore, because if you address it, you'll have to admit that your claim is invalid [much like the patient in my real-life-experience can't argue to the insurance company that what she had in her hand is not a triglyceride result but a trigesid, since the nurse gave it to her when she asked for "trigesid" result without correcting her]


I'll suggest you to give the post another read, specifically the whole paragraph of that sentence. What they're apologizing for and referring to "confusing" was that you misunderstood it as an attempt to buy your silence while what they tried to achieve is simply to help you resolve your addiction problem without placing much stress in you.

I think saying they do nothing to "fix it" is uncalled for, given they actually remedied the issue with a more direct and strict manner [yet proven to be very effective], namely locking you out.


I am not familiar with how the master license holder resolve the dispute raised to them, but if I am not mistaken, they will review your case, send the casino in question an email and ask for their side [what happened according to them, the supporting evidence, things like that], they'll exchange emails until the regulator [in this case, CIL] get all they need to conduct their investigation, and finally send you an email with their findings and decision.

All I can advise to you is to exercise patience, given [as previously mentioned] it can take weeks before they come to a decision. For example, CEG will need about 14 to 28 working days to review a case after they get all the documents they needed. I believe CIL have their own time frame.

As the decision made by the master license holders considered as final and bindings to both parties, many casino usually rest the case to the regulator's hand, ceases from replying to other platforms [be it this forum or arbitrator] as it became rather futile, the decision made by the regulator overcome every other platforms. This is just to inform you if you wondered why, from this point forward, BC.Game Support doesn't address your thread anymore.

Yes, exactly, there is no "help/responsible-gambling-policy" page, only "help/responsible-gambling" sans "policy", because that page is not about their policy, that page is a help page describing responsible gambling. As such, the content on it are not the terms that you both agreed, it's a help page, a guide.

Otherwise, with the same logic that you apply, this page is one of their policy too:



does that even make sense? A page of agreement policy regarding an explanation of what a crypto is? No. Why? Because having a section on their help page, the page that happens to also house the terms of service and terms of sport, does not instantly mean they are policy. The pages that talk about policy and rules are clearly indicated on the page, the other ones are there to serve the purpose of a guide, like how that crypto page aimed to give a quick explanation to the newcomers to cryptocommunity.

Second, your chat with their email [I re-uploaded the image to talkimg so everybody can see it easier] is awfully looks like, if I may borrow legal term, "leading the witness", you asked them to point out where the responsible gaming page is, nonchalantly adding the word "policy", without making it clear that you ask for that page in a literal way; a responsible gaming policy page. Staffs, [or anyone, really] will very likely dismissed that as a simple typo or a user choice of word, not acknowledging or bother to correct it, partially so they won't sound rude for correcting mis-use it as an attempt to inquire about responsible-gaming-page.



A real-life example that I happen to currently experience, someone very important to me is currently hospitalized, and I can't help to overheard a conversation on their nurse station [since my ass is practically planted on the hospital] between a nurse and a patient, for her "tri-ge-syd" result. Do you think the nurse will say something like, "we don't have such thing, were you mispronounced triglyceride?", or will she understand that the patient was referring to a triglyceride lab result, tactfully refraining from correcting the patient, and give what she asked?

Unless the patient then said, "no, I ask for tri-ge-syd result, not triglyceride, this is triglyceride, this is not what I'm looking for. Do you have my tri-ge-syd result?" it will be assumed that the patient asked for triglyceride and the nurse won't bother to correct her. Just like your case. Unless you specifically said "no, this is the help page explaining about responsible gambling. I am asking for your responsible gambling policy, as in the terms of service that we agreed about it", she will assume you asked for the responsible gambling page and refrained from saying that the "responsible gambling page" does not exist.

Applied to the case of the patient, can the patient claimed to her doctor or to her insurance company or whoever interested like, "this is not triglyceride result, this is trigesid, I asked the nurse for trigesid and she gave me this paper. This is proof that it is a trigesid result, not triglyceride."?

I believe everyone reading that screenshot can easily see this, as well as you know exactly what you tried to pull when you wrote your chat in that manner.

But humor us, what's the earlier part of your chat with her? Is there a reason why only the last part is shown?

To address your invitation to try myself,


Please read again. You can't just omit an explanation and twist it to match the narrative you want to drive.

I'll try once more, the fact of your situation came to their awareness by the end of February, of which they promptly tried to deescalate the situation by offering that USD 500, with an idea on their mind that they want to solve it in a manner as peaceful as they can for your sake, with a concern, at that time, that if they leave it escalated by you answering questions on the forum and brushed so close with gambling situation, you'll relapse or find yourself at a stress and seek the comfort of placing bets to get away from those situation.

Upon learning that their approach is not effective, they abandon the attempt to be compassionate, throw everything out of the window and take a direct-but-subtle approach by asking you to self exclude yourself. When this plea is also not heeded, they finally lock you themselves. This whole event happen from the end of February to the 3rd of March.


Sadly, it's out of the window, water is under the bridge, the ice is melting, the meat is overcooked, whichever proverbs you choose. they offered, it stays good for a period of time, they retract it, it's no longer available. Move on and stop trying to use it as a bargaining chips. It only highlight your characteristic of an addict.


Yeah, if I am not mistaken, the response time for those regulator are three months. Means, you're expected to wait for three months before you can hear back from them and it should still be considered as acceptable by their timeframe. Just to confirm, you reached CIL?

I somehow missed this one. To clarify, you want to raise a scam accusation against CIL? Because they didn't reply you within... few days?

Ok, I actually have typed a reply to your post on your thread, of which part of it contain a topic about CIL. I am not posting it yet because I accepted your invitation to contact the support myself and inquire about the matter. But apparently I am not as lucky as you, I still can't reach them up to this second because I can't sit in front of my monitor the entire day and diligently wait for their reply, and that they close ticket after a short period of silence from us [I am fair here, I take no side, so I say what actually happens] though their response time to our ticket is hugely disproportionate to the time they gave us to respond to it. I covered about it on the other thread, that they're currently clogged, but that's why my long silence on your thread, and perhaps I better posted it right now and made an addition about that so called "policy" after I can get in touch with them.

---

Can you?

I've asked you numerous times to describe the nature of that photo according to your version, yet you keep evading the inquiry and insistent on being allowed to see it. It just strengthen the possibility of Blo-Johan-and-Joana theory, that you're clueless about the photo, how it even looks like.

And now that you're reluctant to do video verification KYC...

---

It's not that easy. If you give this whole thread a read, I think you'll come to a situation where you question OP's sincerity and her story, and that BC tries to find the best approach to tackle the case, in regards to the possible situation behind that KYC photo.

If I were BC, I will actually refrain from performing that video call until OP can at least give a hint that she roughly knows what the photo looks like, to prove that it is indeed herself who perform the KYC and the account is owned and operated by her. I somewhat find it kinda suspicious if someone can't describe [and deflecting the question over and over] what she looked like during her KYC.

Well, OP, can you at least tell us something, anything about the photo? The color of your clothes? What background you were in? A blank white wall of your living room? Blue wall as you're in your bedroom? A cafe?

I was just trying to determine how accurate the situation and the total fund being involved here, how much you deposited and how much you already withdrawn, and at the same time, how accurate their claim that you're in overall profit is.


Upon violation, when a user already in overall profit, casinos are frequently will not return the user's balance, it'll be used to cover their loses from the violation the user did. However, when what the user already withdrawn is less than what they deposited, the casino will return half or all of the fund to match this deposit [returning the original deposit] as they have no intention of robbing the said user's right of fund, only preventing them to do further abuse.

This is a new wallet? I can't find any prior transaction on it. Have you check your originating address? The one you use to deposit into Rollbit. Maybe they send the deposit back there. Can you provide them here as well?

You don't remember how much you deposited and withdrawn from their platform? Wasn't this information readily available on the Blockchain of your depositing and withdrawing address? The address you give us is a clean address, it doesn't store any of those information

Maybe I missed this info and it's already provided in one of your post, but I gave the whole thread a read, three times, and still can't find it. So... can you please provide us with your address? I'll put my eyes on them and will notify you when it arrived.

It is not that simple, the forum prizes privacy so much and we frown to doxxing [though if you give your consent and agreement, technically it's allowed]. This is what I try to get from the higher highest-ups, their permission to make an exception. I will specifically ask BC to refrain from doing so while I try to get green light from them.

But, suppose they allow it as an exception and you give your consent, I somehow think we [the forum] will still find it quite unethical for such information to be available for public on this section, not to mention BC perhaps think it violates their ToS with you regarding privacy. I think this is why BC is silent for a while, they weighted all the options carefully and try to come with the best one.

To be transparent [yet still without being specific as the nature of what I asked and they replied is personal and private] one actually gave his greenlight, as long as you gave your consent and words that you will not consider it as an attempt to doxx you [which you already gave] but the others suggested other approach. And unless I get a green light from all of them, in an absolute, uncontested, all-in-the-same-agreement way to get to verify this photo, I'll ask to refrain from walking this path.

Thus, I think the best approach, if we don't want to wait for the absolute permission, where we'll [most likely] still adhere to forum's rule, and perhaps not violating BC's privacy policy ToS, as well as preserving the sensitive info contained in that picture in the best way we can for your sake, I am suggesting you to take the second alternative: to have multiple people to check and validate the real circumstance around that photo, instead of just you and me.

If you [and BC, in regards to their privacy policy] are agree with this approach, I will propose several names, of whom are DTs, whose neutrality [I think we can all agree] are without doubt, and some are frequently attending cases on scam accusation boards and probably even familiar with your case as they follow the development in silence.

From those names, you can choose [to be sure that this entire process is on a neutral ground and free of any manipulation] which users you're willing to have your personal info being shared to. I'll then send each of them PMs, asking if they're willing to bear the burden to check and validate the photo and give their statement here regarding what they think of the photo. If one or two of them refuse [which, completely within their right], I will then ask you to choose another name from the list until we reach... I think five people [seven with you and me included] agree to validate it is enough? Or will that be a tad bit of an overkill?

Alternatively, if you want to turn the table, here's the list of this month's DT, you can choose the ones that you think is trustable and write their name here, I'll see from those names, which DTs are most likely will want to help verifying your case, if we all agree on that name, I'll ask their help through PM.

I think you'll also need to give a written statement, as in here, in form of a post, that you waive your rights on BC's privacy policy and allow them to publish that specific personal information of yours.

And I'm still waiting for this,

---

BC.Game Support, this proposal is also open for you. I'll repeat what I say above, that I highly urge you to refrain from publishing it here in public prior to the greenlight from the mods. However, I also understand that casinos have a privacy policy that they have to adhere.

I believe your silence is because you're conflicted with whether to comply with OP's proposal [about posting here or through PM to selected high ranked member] in regards to their privacy. Though everything should be approached with case-to-case basis, if you believe the approach I propose above will jeopardize this specific user's privacy and you want to keep it safe from public in accordance to your privacy policy, the best way that your team can take is, perhaps, a video call. If you're willing to do it?

I think OP rounded it up for the sake of simplicity and a guesstimate. Combined, his BTC deposit is 0.94951598. He can, of course, wrote 0.95, but I think he choose to write 1 BTC to make it simple, or he just did the math on his mind and decided that the number is close to 1.

Yes, the 0.05... here is a bit important and big to be left out [I think the term "included in" will fits better], but I think that's not the major point here. And no, I think he made another deposit other than the 1 BTC, he mentioned that he initially deposited 3,000 USD, I guess that'll be visible on "local currency" tab.

---

OP, I don't think it will be fair if I label this case as "active" [means the user has provided strong evidences and the representative of the casino still doesn't attend to the thread] with just those two screenshots. Do you mind to please upload more? I believe conversation with their support team will contribute much to our understanding. Your thread is still open to a huge load of questions because I don't think people can completely grasp what happened to you.

And, how long was your account left dormant? As in when did you last played before you try to withdraw recently? Not that it's related to the case and contribute to any development, just... curious.

Oh, OP, to address this issue above, I think it's not intentional. I've been trying to reach their live support myself for umm... an unrelated situation with your case. And yes, it's slow. I initially thought it's simply due to a weekend, where some of their staffs are off, but then I noticed they have this warning on their chatbox,



I believe it's just a temporary issue and will soon "unclog" itself