BC.GAME - CASINO-SPORTBOOK, OFFICIAL SPONSOR LEICESTER CITY!

[Warfare]

-snip-
IMAGINE A SITE THAT MADE MY WIFE PLAY THE COCORUSH GAME FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND FINALLY DIDN'T GIVE HER THE AIRDROP AND BC PANDA ONLY APOLOGIZED!

She isn't the only one that wasted many months on Coco Rush and didn't get the airdrop.

[masulum]

Any accusation against a casino can bring down the casino and I saw that in 1XBIT. And many of the accusations are truth but the victims could not provide good evidents so they became trashed. And we advise that casinos should avoid being accused because it is not really good for their wellbeing in the forum and outside the forum. -snip-

All casinos have procedures that users must adhere to. If any rules are violated, it's within the casino rights to freeze accounts or withdrawal attempts. Can casinos prevent complaints? No, complaints are user-generated, because, complaints are part of business and can never be prevented. No matter how good a casino's service is, complaints will inevitably arise. This is normal, all users want to get what they want. It's up to each individual user. However, casinos won't freeze withdrawals unless there's been a violation. If a user makes an accusation that something isn't going according to plan, the only thing they can do is provide evidence. If there not enough evidence, will be the solution?  No, That's what makes it impossible to find any solution, and the accuser can't win his accusation.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I know this is common suggestion but I think its better to talk about this matter on their support. Try to raise this issue to their support so that they would also know your situation and to make sure that your account created is clean so that you won't encounter any possible issue link to multiple account usage.

I think that's a good idea. Thanks.

the strange email/IP issue aside, i would not recommend trying to signup to casinos with Tor next time, most of the time it doesn't work properly and you will be just setting yourself up for problems later on when you try to cash out if they don't catch it early, especially on casinos with bonuses.

I didn't even think about it because Tor is the browser I use when I'm on the forum and I clicked on the link to register from here. Besides, I would say that such an issue is not so rare, as I had a similar issue with Amazon, which I won't go into here. But sometimes a system detects an error or something strange and gives you a message that is not the one that corresponds to the error in fact.

just play with raw balance, bonuses wagering requirements are not worth it.

Txs for that.

[tabas]

I can attest to that. I have registered on the main bcgame and was able to participate in some poker tournaments conducted before with bcpoker. I just used the same account of mine and didn't have to register to bcpoker because they share the same database. So both registration complements each other and a user can login his credentials to both websites.

Well, that's quite good to hear! I've not used the same username and password of BC.GAME on BC poker and instead registered a new account at BC poker and for me that worked as well without any issues. However, I would say that on BC poker a player has more controls like changing one's avatar etc. I know such a thing might be possible on BC.GAME as well but I didn't try that on main site of BC.GAME and tried it on BC Poker instead.

Just try your account and login details for both of them, and so you'll see that they work for both websites. Because I've been playing plinko before with bcgame and then tested the bcpoker when some promos have came. I didn't registered any new account on it and just used the old account of mine and it did worked.

[aylabadia05]

<snip>

The problem is not that the casino had a lot of issues reported by the gamblers and they found it hard to resolve them on time and many of them are delays. The point is why there are so many issues at the first place
If a lot of users are experiencing issues simultaneously, there is something wrong at the casino end and they should focus on getting the root cause fixed, rather than delaying the resolutions and making excuses for too many problems reported.

No argument if that's what you're saying. Because it makes sense to accept.
Related to this, it is clear and can be understood by users here.

Anyway. There is a guess the emoji game on BC.Game.
Crack the code and get $200 for 20 winners.
It's a brain teaser game.

[Perfectbaby]

Something strange happened when I registered on BC.GAME. I was using Tor (which is the browser I usually use) and when I saw that it wasn't working properly, I switched to a normal browser. When I finished registering, a message appeared saying that I was not eligible for a bonus because someone else had already registered from my IP address. I don't think that's accurate. What happened was that the system registered my email address when I was using Tor even though I didn't finish the registration, and when I registered with that email address in a normal browser, the message appeared.

In any case, can you recommend any bonuses that I can take advantage of, such as a first deposit bonus?

Something like this must definitely happened because the system has already recorded the first entry through your internet and when you switched over to the normal browser it also has same records. But what I don't understand about is that " you use the same mail to continue your registration" So the system shouldn't have detect it as multiple or connected accounts. Like what few people had already suggested it would be nice to have the support team involved about this to get elaborated on what was the reason for such actions.

[OcTradism]

Something strange happened when I registered on BC.GAME. I was using Tor (which is the browser I usually use) and when I saw that it wasn't working properly, I switched to a normal browser. When I finished registering, a message appeared saying that I was not eligible for a bonus because someone else had already registered from my IP address. I don't think that's accurate. What happened was that the system registered my email address when I was using Tor even though I didn't finish the registration, and when I registered with that email address in a normal browser, the message appeared.

When you use Tor, you likely use same exit nodes that are used by many other Tor users. It is the issue but I understand your concern like why you did not complete your account registration with Tor, as it was not allowed by BC.Game, and later you registered your account without Tor, it was still flagged.

You did not describe extra details like whether you clear your browser cookies entirely after a failure with Tor, before register your account without Tor. I guess  you did not clear browser cookies before trying it again.

If you did like this, it is the cause, and I believe that if you clear cookies before trying account registration again, you will have no problem.

[pusaka]

I've noticed that when someone accuses a casino of cheating, they often lack credible evidence. So, it's natural to assume that someone who claims a casino is cheating is lying. They're probably frustrated because they couldn't control themselves and ultimately lost everything.

I've contacted the support team several times and received a quick response when I encountered a problem. Even if they don't respond immediately, they'll usually tell us how long we should wait until action is taken. Especially if the cheating is being accused of a reputable casino, which will inevitably lead to requests for proof.

This is why I don’t initially believe to any newbie user complaining unless he is willing to cooperate by providing evidence.

Most of the cheater usually very aggressive and doesn’t want to cooperate by providing further evidence and keep insisting their argument against the casino.

But not all newbie is automatically lying since there’s some legit concern out there which a user having a hard time to provide evidence due to their account is already banned.

They simply shirk their answers when asked for proof, insisting they have it, but they don't provide it. Even when they do, they only post screenshots of themselves contacting support, which I don't think is valid.

Yes, they simply assume their argument is correct and insist on addressing their issues immediately. This isn't objective, because they simply did something wrong, and it was their own fault. They blame others or the casino for their own mistakes.

We've seen several users on this forum, even those who are well-known, yet they don't experience such problems. If a casino were cheating or fraudulent, the long-time users would be the first to feel it, logically. Furthermore, this forum is strictly closed to fraudulent casinos.

[fikrett]

When you use Tor, you likely use same exit nodes that are used by many other Tor users. It is the issue but I understand your concern like why you did not complete your account registration with Tor, as it was not allowed by BC.Game, and later you registered your account without Tor, it was still flagged.

You did not describe extra details like whether you clear your browser cookies entirely after a failure with Tor, before register your account without Tor. I guess  you did not clear browser cookies before trying it again.

If you did like this, it is the cause, and I believe that if you clear cookies before trying account registration again, you will have no problem.

Hm. That would be truly interesting to test out!

I think it may fix the issue and allow for a clean signup process.

[pawanjain]

Something strange happened when I registered on BC.GAME. I was using Tor (which is the browser I usually use) and when I saw that it wasn't working properly, I switched to a normal browser. When I finished registering, a message appeared saying that I was not eligible for a bonus because someone else had already registered from my IP address. I don't think that's accurate. What happened was that the system registered my email address when I was using Tor even though I didn't finish the registration, and when I registered with that email address in a normal browser, the message appeared.

When you use Tor, you likely use same exit nodes that are used by many other Tor users. It is the issue but I understand your concern like why you did not complete your account registration with Tor, as it was not allowed by BC.Game, and later you registered your account without Tor, it was still flagged.

You did not describe extra details like whether you clear your browser cookies entirely after a failure with Tor, before register your account without Tor. I guess  you did not clear browser cookies before trying it again.

If you did like this, it is the cause, and I believe that if you clear cookies before trying account registration again, you will have no problem.

There are only 2 possibilities in that case. If it's a client side error then clearing the cache from the browser and then reloading the site will solve the issue.
On the other hand, if the issue is on the server side then the account will remain flagged forever i.e. unless BC.GAME revoke the flag manually.
Even clearing the cache won't workout in the second scenario since the account would be flagged at database level.

[gunhell16]

Unfortunately there's no option to upload UK documents, so I'm stuck with quite a large sum of USDT (over 50k) in my account - I used a VPN
and unknowingly bypassed the region restriction, so I'm messaging now just to say - is there any way I could get my remaining funds out?

I replied to your post in your other thread earlier and I just wanted to reply here too. Fact is that your funds are pretty much gone since you went against their TOS and they are a business who focuses on profit at the end of the day.

They are already struggling with legit rising KYC related accusations recently which is why you shouldn't have taken such a crazy risk in the first place and put yourself in this situation.

The problem that starts from the beginning by imposing the will by crossing the regional boundaries with a VPN is a mistake that is quite difficult to accept, even though from the beginning we should be aware that when using a VPN, we must be prepared to accept various consequences because not only in BC.Game but on several other sites it is also the same where VPNs are not recommended.

So that by committing this violation, it is unlikely that in the end even if you make a complaint anywhere and for any reason, the mistake is still made from the player himself because he imposes a will which in the end is against the rules that clearly prohibit this.
Even if you seek support from various parties in the end when the mistake starts from the player himself who violates it will still be difficult to make the complaint realized in the end.

You're right, complaining would be pointless if the complainant himself was immediately seen admitting to the violation that the gambling platform had. This is probably what other complainants are doing in their gamble that they might still be able to save the funds they have on the platform.

But of course the gambling platform will conduct an investigation first and they will see in their investigation that the fault actually lies with their players.

[l3pox]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

[Stalker22]

~

How did you find this post from a month ago to offer your opinion now?  Anyways, the topic was self-excluded accounts, not accounts deleted by the casino for being inactive. They are not the same thing. Self-exclusion is a players conscious decision, most often associated with problem gambling. An inactive account deletion is generally initiated by the casino with no real involvement from the player.

[Wiwo]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

But in the end if a casino allow self excluded accounts back into the casino after many years of inactivity, it then means that they have gone against their on set rule and regulations, that their be a regulatory compliance platform, so it out of the way to welcome back excluded accounts.

Its ok to welcome inactive accounts back such accounts that have become dormant but not on a self exclusions but just accounts that the users just suddenly become inactive, such accounts can be offered bonuses to get the back into the casino.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

Logically, it does cost extra money to keep and maintain account that is not active on the casino, because like I mentioned, if we are to think logically, a server is like a big hall that houses differents rooms, a server as a hall can maybe house 1 million rooms or more depending on how large the server is, and each of this rooms belongs to a registered user, this is where the user's personal details are stored in the form of a database, the user's data, his username, his login details, his wallet addresses, his account logs and transaction history and many more are stored in the users data which also is load stored on the server, this load may contribute significantly or insignificantly in slowing down the server, and each time the server is being maintained, it will cost a bit more to keep accommodating those inactive accounts as this is like packing out of a house will leaving your belongings in the room, someone else can't pack in until you have completely packed your belongings..

So this why there are some casinos where if a user stopped coming online for a very long time, they either delete the account or will start Charging the account for rent, which the user must pay when he or she comes back to claim the account again - this is not very common though, but I've experienced this on one casino I can longer remember it's name.

[Odusko]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

Logically, it does cost extra money to keep and maintain account that is not active on the casino, because like I mentioned, if we are to think logically, a server is like a big hall that houses differents rooms, a server as a hall can maybe house 1 million rooms or more depending on how large the server is, and each of this rooms belongs to a registered user, this is where the user's personal details are stored in the form of a database, the user's data, his username, his login details, his wallet addresses, his account logs and transaction history and many more are stored in the users data which also is load stored on the server, this load may contribute significantly or insignificantly in slowing down the server, and each time the server is being maintained, it will cost a bit more to keep accommodating those inactive accounts as this is like packing out of a house will leaving your belongings in the room, someone else can't pack in until you have completely packed your belongings..

So this why there are some casinos where if a user stopped coming online for a very long time, they either delete the account or will start Charging the account for rent, which the user must pay when he or she comes back to claim the account again - this is not very common though, but I've experienced this on one casino I can longer remember it's name.

for me because of the cost that it will incured for both the site and the government, is better for account that applied for self exclusion to be permanently deleted so as to prevent it welcome back that can hit both the casino and the owner of the account, because of a self excluded account should get involved in gambling again the government will definitely come for the casino as violators of the government policies on self exclusion.

[Kavelj22]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

I also believe that inactive accounts should not be deleted no matter how long they remain dormant, and there should not be any fees imposed on them as they do not cost the system anything. Any platform that occupies itself with those accounts is likely trying to achieve returns even though they cost nothing.

Really wonder how you suddenly came across that post in the quote which was published one month ago in page 278 as we are now in page 291. Do you have a favorite pastime to scroll in bcgame ANN thread and read old posts? Sorry if this comment may bother you in anyway. No offense Bro. I just think it's a little bit strange to reply to an old post that isn't even have that quality to worth reply after one month since first posted.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

But people have a habit to change their decisions. 35 years ago I wanted to be a firefighter. After many years, I have chosen different profession. People opinion change with time, after a decision. Not saying that casinos should immediately welcome their former clients who have chosen self exclusion, but will it be bad if a gambler returns after 10 years? From ToS - yes, as solution would be having another account. From moral point of view - I would give a chance if a person really wants to return.

we don't know if there's a cost to maitain an account (monetary cost or maybe some extra difficult or time needed by the support, I don't know) but in general I'd agree with you
it would be better if the accounts are not deleted or banned after innactive use

it's normal to do something for a while, stop doing it and come back again even if after many years.

Logically, it does cost extra money to keep and maintain account that is not active on the casino, because like I mentioned, if we are to think logically, a server is like a big hall that houses differents rooms, a server as a hall can maybe house 1 million rooms or more depending on how large the server is, and each of this rooms belongs to a registered user, this is where the user's personal details are stored in the form of a database, the user's data, his username, his login details, his wallet addresses, his account logs and transaction history and many more are stored in the users data which also is load stored on the server, this load may contribute significantly or insignificantly in slowing down the server, and each time the server is being maintained, it will cost a bit more to keep accommodating those inactive accounts as this is like packing out of a house will leaving your belongings in the room, someone else can't pack in until you have completely packed your belongings..

So this why there are some casinos where if a user stopped coming online for a very long time, they either delete the account or will start Charging the account for rent, which the user must pay when he or she comes back to claim the account again - this is not very common though, but I've experienced this on one casino I can longer remember it's name.

for me because of the cost that it will incured for both the site and the government, is better for account that applied for self exclusion to be permanently deleted so as to prevent it welcome back that can hit both the casino and the owner of the account, because of a self excluded account should get involved in gambling again the government will definitely come for the casino as violators of the government policies on self exclusion.

You are absolutely right and I agree with you, any account that has applied for the self exclusion, such account should be deleted as soon as the self exclusion request is approved by the casino, there is absolutely no need keeping the account when the law says that such accounts should be deleted completely.

Many of us have witnessed cases here on this forum where a user comes back to complain about him still being able to access his casino account and even depositing and gambling and losing money after he has asked that he is excluded from the casino, if such a case will appear in the court of law, such casino will be fined greatly for such a misconduct of negligence.

[Perfectbaby]

You are absolutely right and I agree with you, any account that has applied for the self exclusion, such account should be deleted as soon as the self exclusion request is approved by the casino, there is absolutely no need keeping the account when the law says that such accounts should be deleted completely.

Many of us have witnessed cases here on this forum where a user comes back to complain about him still being able to access his casino account and even depositing and gambling and losing money after he has asked that he is excluded from the casino, if such a case will appear in the court of law, such casino will be fined greatly for such a misconduct of negligence.

I think if I am not mistakenly I have came across such discussion here in the forum, although I don't know how it was handled but I could remember someone say of self-exclusion and yet the account was still active and was continued to gamble on the account.
What mostly happened is that to me, I feels like the casino would have to give time or duration for automatic deactivation of that account, maybe they don't know if such user mistakenly click on self-exclusion without know the meaning of that and if such happened they could request for reactivation they still have little grace to have back their account. That is what I felt some casino doesn't go immediate effects to deactivate accounts.

[Wapfika]

…

I think if I am not mistakenly I have came across such discussion here in the forum, although I don't know how it was handled but I could remember someone say of self-exclusion and yet the account was still active and was continued to gamble on the account.
What mostly happened is that to me, I feels like the casino would have to give time or duration for automatic deactivation of that account, maybe they don't know if such user mistakenly click on self-exclusion without know the meaning of that and if such happened they could request for reactivation they still have little grace to have back their account. That is what I felt some casino doesn't go immediate effects to deactivate accounts.

Self exclusion effect usually immediate once you confirmed it with the support since they will send verification email upon request for your final decision.

I’ve done this on some of my casino account including BC and everything went smoothly. It’s very hard to believe immediately on accusations here since some players are just doing some creative editing to twist facts just to make casino pay their losses.