I have to re-read your screenshots and try to read between lines, arrange the puzzle, etc. to be sure I am not missing something, yet I still can't find any statement from them that they're agreed to you bypassing their account ban, or to reopen the first account.

Closest I can find is this, the one you ask [with your first account] after your self-exclusion whether your account got any restriction. There is nowhere on that email chain you state to them that you ask because you have two accounts, or that account  was initially restricted.



Maybe you can supplement us with this screenshots of them allowing you to have second account and reopening your first one?

First of all, the reason is quite specified enough, "no reason" will imply they did not give you any explanation. Second, your main account was suspended and you create another account to get away with the suspension? You do aware that we goes further and further south with your case, right?

I think I find some discrepancy in your story? On the quoted post itself [marked in red], it shows how the statement did not match. You initially said it was closed for no reason, and then it's because you asked for it yourself?

And further, according to the narrative and screenshots you provide, you asked for self exclusion on 3rd of February 2024 from your new account, D***A@gmail.com.

Ahh... my apology, I should have add, "according to them", I forgot about that part... which only add more line on the list of their discrepancies, next to how the taint rating initially shows a low score, and then they claimed that according to their detection system, it's 100% tainted.

Anonymous-Casino itself is not new, it's been around for more than three years, has their own ANN and their own [inactive] representative, which make that edited post quite interesting, because LTC Casino out-of-nowhere-ly announced and promoted them by editing their own old post.

And, suppose they are both managed by same team, you missed the third platform that's also managed and owned by same people,

PM sent. I somewhat doubt they'll come here and address their relation with A-C, though. I also noticed --after sending them the PM-- that the issue has been brought to their awareness through posts on their ANN.


It's the banner. The original post had a banner.

I initially wanted to send their representative a PM, another invitation to revisit this case and see whether to support or oppose the flag based on their reaction and/or development of the case after the PM. But I will refrain to do so, or anything at all, until I hear more from you about this. Please keep us updated.

Even if they've refunded OP and get into a resolution off-screen, or [if we assume for a while here] OP did not tell the full story and there are more to tell, I think the taint on their reputation is already done and can't be erased. They've show that they overcomplicate things, requesting way too intrusive KYC despite their claim of supporting privacy, and --the most important-- no one can guess whether their fund will get through or get confiscated when dealing with their platform, given they have their own blocklist and taint measurement.

Never heard of ltccasino before this... or maybe heard about it here and then, but it failed to be committed to my memory, so I don't have any idea of how they work and their reputation. Speaking strictly on this, could they be... merging? A-C acquired them?

Though ltccasino's trust page shows that their email address was changed recently, I don't think someone hacked into the account and is the one responsible editing above post.

It's interesting dig, LTC Casino was, in fact, promoted their own website before. That thread was talking about their own casino, "ltccasino", and today they made a slight edit and replace the URL to anonymous-casino.




Chips, have you contacted LTC Casino and ask for their side of this story? I'll probably will try to reach them about this if you haven't already.

Well, that's the beauty of their policy, they're going to hold it in their addresses until they are seized by the authorities. Otherwise, it will be sitting nicely in their wallet. I imagine they can say some funds are still not being confiscated by the authorities and thus still remains in their possession.

Have you tried providing screenshot of your withdrawal history like I suggested above? Though it's a bit far fetched, probably analyzing a Blockchain flow is a bit... way above the capability of their support staff, and they handle the situation themselves instead of forwarding it to their Blockchain analyst. Providing a more direct evidence will probably help. It doesn't hurt to try, anyway.

Have you tried to send them a screenshot of your withdrawal from the exchange? Unless I understand it wrongly, if the fund was double-spent intentionally, there should be two withdrawal at the same time. At the very least, it should at least prove that you don't have control over the tx-fee and the flow of the fund, given everything is controlled by the exchange.

If you inform them about this, I am sure they are more than happy to adjust the bonus spin to other thing that's available in your country. Shall this thread marked as resolved, then?

I'm glad you asked about this, as it's probably the second cause of your issue here. This is what I know from other issue with other casino and I am not sure if Rollbit also applies this mechanism, but I think it's safe to assume they are.

Usually, under normal circumstances, self-exclusion will prevent the problematic gambler from playing on the platform again by "blacklisting" the credentials --be it your IP or your ID. But when someone have another account, where one got self-excluded and the other is not, they're kinda crash the self-exclusion system, because the automated system read that the IP --and other parameter they utilize-- should and should not be on the blacklist at the same time.

This should explain your queries on the post above the one I quoted; yes, their system is automated, and you happen to accidentally bypassed that security measure by having two accounts. This is possibly what they refer as circumventing the self-exclusion. Because like previously said, in order for self-exclusion to kick in, it needs participation of both parties. When you did not mention the other account, you're kinda half-heartedly self-exclude yourself, and you circumvented the exclusion you put yourself in by still trying to access with that account.

Did you inform them that you have two accounts and need them both to be self-excluded? Even when they were made aware of the secondary account you have prior to self exclusion, there's no guarantee they can remember that piece of information few days later when you asked for self-exclusion. They cater tons of members on daily basis, probably several hundred name and accounts arrived at the help desk every day, there's a very huge possibility the staff won't remember every name.

The thing with self-exclusion is, the burden of the responsibility does not fall solely on the casino. It's their way to help a gambling problem faced by a gambler. But for it to be effective, the Gambler also need to actively participate in it. From your case, it should be by informing them about both account.

And no, as harsh as it may sound, they don't have any responsibility to return your fund. It's there on the agreed clause upon self exclusion,



"Rollbit will not be held liable for any loss or damages which occured as a result of circumventing our self-exclusion program"

[Reuploading the image through talkimg and rearranging it chronologically]

Do you happen to have the part of the conversation where you specifically asked for an invite and not an account? There's probably a misunderstanding from both side, where sfc thought you're looking for an account and you thought he'll send an invite.

It's been a while since I use private torrent, and not trying to downscaling your case here [if you specifically asked for it and he agreed to it, he should provide as agreed], but aren't the two basically works the same? An invite allows you to create an account, while an account, well... an account, a step that follows after an invite being used. So basically [again, not trying to downscaling your case here] he skipped an extra step?

I've add this case to the list, but umm... this above, you're saying you create a scam accusation while you're currently actively in touch with their representative and you both are still in the middle of getting to the bottom of the situation?

Given sfc deleted OP's posts from his thread, I am quite sure he's aware of the current issue. I personally choose to wait for more evidence and context from OP before jumping into any action. It feels like there is more than meets the eye.

And that should raise a question on the purpose of that site. They'll have new brand, so the web address will likely changed to reflect the new name, they'll have new UI [complete redesign], basically everything will be new. And as the license is also not valid, then the site is clearly didn't serve a purpose of "showing" their license. So why bother having a "test site" that will be completely different from the one being launched in the future? What to test? Unless the one being tested is cryptocommunity's reaction?

I believe it's a legit question to be asked, betnomi?