BETBOLT promised me a refund for my deposits last week, no news since then

[holydarkness]

To HolyDarkness

I would like to clarify that I never mentioned, and never claimed, that the user wasn’t self-excluded. I specifically said the user closed his account. You’re interpreting my words incorrectly.

You’re supporting an abuser who should be held responsible for his losses and who intended to extort money from us.

Also, if you have anything further to say, we can continue this conversation here or in personal messages.

And I am not supporting the flag because you or your team failed to refund the player, as I stated on my latest post here. Nor for what you claimed or not claimed of the self exclusion. Rather, the evidence OP provided below, of the chat-log he had with your staff who said, as below, that I mark in red box, to further emphasize,



Did it not happen or did the conversation did exist?

I am very well aware there are players out there who tries their best to fool casinos and exploit their "gambling addiction" and self exclusion to create a fail-safe and "sure bet", but I think a situation where casino encourage an account creation to bypass self-exclusion entitle them a question mark, no?

[yahoo62278]

I must also agree that when Maximus stated make a new account he opened the door for the OP to get some sort of compensation. Normally I would advise the gambler to man up, but the agent put his foot in his mouth with his reply. I have no idea if the agent(maximus) is A_Betbolt or some other employee, but maybe he should be the 1 to have to pay the settlement or lose his job. Assuming he is not the owner as far as losing his job.

The casino terms state 1 account per user!!!

[FirstComingOfTom]

I have very little to add to this topic after what the previous posters have already stated. Casinoguru recommended I contact the Anjouan Gaming authority, who have given these guys a license very recently. Not sure if they'll look at the case as everything happened before Betbolt got the license, but at the very least I can let the authority know how little Betbolt values responsible gaming.

[A_betbolt]

You can't claim it's not about the money, and then use that money for promoting your own business.

I specifically emphasized “no strings attached” because this giveaway is not intended as a promotion. Rather, it demonstrates that principles matter more, and that we truly value our forum and its members. If the community decides the money should go to charity instead of being distributed to members, we will honor that choice as well.

I am very well aware there are players out there who tries their best to fool casinos and exploit their "gambling addiction" and self exclusion to create a fail-safe and "sure bet", but I think a situation where casino encourage an account creation to bypass self-exclusion entitle them a question mark, no?

I want to make it absolutely clear that our casino strictly respects all self-exclusion agreements. We would never encourage or allow a customer to bypass them by creating a new account. The staff member involved was not aware of the user’s situation. Our policies have always prohibited the creation of new accounts under self-exclusion, and this remains firmly in place.

The message from our agent was an isolated error and not aligned with our official policies. We are taking corrective action and re-training our staff to ensure this never happens again. While this incident is regrettable, it has given us the opportunity to further strengthen our commitment to player protection. Our top priority has always been, and always will be, safe and responsible gaming.

I would like to conclude the matter here, as the user lost their money in a fair system. These claims would not have surfaced had the outcome been in their favor. Additionally, the user was found to be abusing our system, attempting to exploit the situation and turn it into a case of extortion. We have also made it clear that it was never about the money, as we are willing to give away these funds to forum members with no strings attached, or donate them to any charity of the forum's choice.

[holydarkness]

I am very well aware there are players out there who tries their best to fool casinos and exploit their "gambling addiction" and self exclusion to create a fail-safe and "sure bet", but I think a situation where casino encourage an account creation to bypass self-exclusion entitle them a question mark, no?

I want to make it absolutely clear that our casino strictly respects all self-exclusion agreements. We would never encourage or allow a customer to bypass them by creating a new account. The staff member involved was not aware of the user’s situation. Our policies have always prohibited the creation of new accounts under self-exclusion, and this remains firmly in place.

The message from our agent was an isolated error and not aligned with our official policies. We are taking corrective action and re-training our staff to ensure this never happens again. While this incident is regrettable, it has given us the opportunity to further strengthen our commitment to player protection. Our top priority has always been, and always will be, safe and responsible gaming.

I would like to conclude the matter here, as the user lost their money in a fair system. These claims would not have surfaced had the outcome been in their favor. Additionally, the user was found to be abusing our system, attempting to exploit the situation and turn it into a case of extortion. We have also made it clear that it was never about the money, as we are willing to give away these funds to forum members with no strings attached, or donate them to any charity of the forum's choice.

Well, this is not about the money from the overseers' side too [at least not from my side]. It's the transparency and safe gambling environment for the gamblers that you failed to enforce, cross that, your team encouraged the action. It was that that made me support the flag.

Nonetheless, I'll take your word at face value that corrective measure has been taken, given I know very well that gamblers will do things to circumvent their exclusion. I am retracting my support and leaving a neutral tag on this thread as reference for a while, just to remind us that there was a case of staff encouraging circumventing self-exclusion and that you've taken corrective measurement. So, when similar future case happen...

[and in case people cite this occasion where I use feedback as my "notes", well, the aternative is red tag for blatant evidence of encouraging players to circumvent exclusion]