NO KYC Sportbooks?

[madnessteat]

^

By registering with Sportbooks, you accept the agreement, which can often be amended without your consent, or it says that if the user is suspected of illegal activities, his account can be blocked until the circumstances are clarified. These circumstances mean that you must confirm your identity and prove the origin of funds. Keep this in mind and don't keep large sums at the gambling sites. 

[1715267809]

1715267809

[1715267809]

1715267809

[1715267809]

1715267809

[passwordnow]

Even How those sportsbook mean that they are not requiring KYC as mandatory , but in the end? they may use this KYC to questioned specially those who are winning huge amount as their Terms mostly mentioned this that in any cases that the activity of the gambler is malicious then they will require KYC .
this means one thing that no matter how we wanted to get rid of KYC yet this will come sometimes .

That's not fair and it's a wrong practice, I heard some of that issues on some sportsbooks but the sportsbook I trust, don't require that KYC even if you win big. If they will promote anonymous gambling, then it's a violation of our rights if they'll suddenly require a KYC, it's not within the rules anymore but it's their effort to scam gamblers.

If it's a wrong practice then there will be no sportsbook that will do. I agree to madness that in the beginning, upon your registration you've agreed to the terms and rules that they have. Despite not reading you, you've agreed whatever was written there and the KYC thing is part of it.
They can ask it whenever they want and if there's a trigger calling for them because of a very suspicious activity caught into your account.

[AhmadM]

To be honest, I believe for a huge casino platform such as stake.com, they wouldn't perform KYC requirements to its users who play at hundreds of dollar range for each session.

Some users reported that there is the personal information needed before anything else. It means slowly but surely, we can now expect that KYC will be implemented at most casinos not just on Stake.

Perhaps those users are high rollers? Thats why the casino asked for some personal information to those users in the first place. As a small gambler like me who play with tens of dollar as starting balances, I have never faced such kind of thing.

Regardless, I'm prepared for anything. If there's no choice but to comply, what we can do about it.

I will only pass KYC on reputable casinos.

Like it or not, if we want to keep playing there we have to do it.

[DoublerHunter]

^

By registering with Sportbooks, you accept the agreement, which can often be amended without your consent, or it says that if the user is suspected of illegal activities, his account can be blocked until the circumstances are clarified. These circumstances mean that you must confirm your identity and prove the origin of funds. Keep this in mind and don't keep large sums at the gambling sites. 

^ Definitely right and totally agree with you, this is very common of each sportsbook and this agreement we should be aware in the first place before putting our money and this will be found on this TOS which is very crucial to us as gamblers. Most likely the NO KYC for now was slowly faded, as we can see the most sportsbook are now implemented KYC as an amended by the government. It is too hard to find a non KYC and if there is, their reputation is not strong enough to pick as a good sportsbook gambling casino.

[timerland]

To be honest, I believe for a huge casino platform such as stake.com, they wouldn't perform KYC requirements to its users who play at hundreds of dollar range for each session.

Some users reported that there is the personal information needed before anything else. It means slowly but surely, we can now expect that KYC will be implemented at most casinos not just on Stake.

Regardless, I'm prepared for anything. If there's no choice but to comply, what we can do about it.

I will only pass KYC on reputable casinos.

You can certainly do something about it.

And that is simply switching to a casino that has a better track record for supporting anonymity instead of focusing on Stake or any other platform.

You're completely right in the regard that KYC is going to be on the rise overall in the next few years as crypto goes mainstream. But it's up to us the consumers to suppress that.

[seleme]

What are some sportbooks that will NEVER ask for KYC

Stake are the best options for me but seriously, there’s no such thing NEVER because those gambling site might require you to fill up KYC especially if your account is suspicious, better to read the Terms of service first so you can be more aware about the rules and prevent any suspicious transactions later on.

Stake is an average bookie and so much slippery, cashout availability problems, etc. I have seen so many cases about the sudden KYC requirement by the Stake team and they refuse to pay if the user doesn't want to pass KYC. So I doubt the OP will be interested to bet on Stake, there are better alternatives if the criteria is KYC-free sports bookies.

The question is not about KYC-free sports bookies but the assurance that sports betting websites will not ask for KYC in the future.

All crypto-bettings sites have a chance to break their terms about no-KYC in the future that's why instead of suggesting to OP some crypto-sites, better give advice that be ready when KYC will be asked.

Even the most popular and reputable sports betting sites can't give an assurance that they will keep their no-KYC policy for long.

The problem is he is not ready to get such an absolute requirement filled up email from the support team of no-KYC sports bookies. Even if the team decided to verify the owner of the account, the user can easily refuse to do so and ask for the deposit back if there is such a term on the user agreement. The risks are there and it is the complete responsibility of the gambler to understand the risks he/she takes. Otherwise, easy money for the gambling platform with useless promises. Just my 2 cents.

[stadus]

Even if the team decided to verify the owner of the account, the user can easily refuse to do so and ask for the deposit back if there is such a term on the user agreement. Just my 2 cents.

The user can do that and there's no choice for the gambling site but to return the deposit, however, isn't it unfair for the gamblers that he could not take his win because his account got flagged for suspicious activities just because he cannot comply with the KYC? I mean, they can fabricate stories just to make sure they'll not pay the gamblers and that's their advantage in this game since we choose to play anonymously.

[harizen]

The user can do that and there's no choice for the gambling site but to return the deposit, however, isn't it unfair for the gamblers that he could not take his win because his account got flagged for suspicious activities just because he cannot comply with the KYC? I mean, they can fabricate stories just to make sure they'll not pay the gamblers and that's their advantage in this game since we choose to play anonymously.

That will now end up in a public trial to somehow pressure the site. If the site is reputable and has a large community especially here in the forum, there's a chance they won't do that kind of shitty response and treatment to their customers.

I hope so that's not always the case and everything will be settled properly between the site and users.

[panjul07]

Even How those sportsbook mean that they are not requiring KYC as mandatory , but in the end? they may use this KYC to questioned specially those who are winning huge amount as their Terms mostly mentioned this that in any cases that the activity of the gambler is malicious then they will require KYC .
this means one thing that no matter how we wanted to get rid of KYC yet this will come sometimes .

That's not fair and it's a wrong practice, I heard some of that issues on some sportsbooks but the sportsbook I trust, don't require that KYC even if you win big. If they will promote anonymous gambling, then it's a violation of our rights if they'll suddenly require a KYC, it's not within the rules anymore but it's their effort to scam gamblers.

Didn't you notice that almost all sites has a term that they reserve the right to ask you KYC?
Even if you are playing in anonymous gambling site, this term does exist for a reason.
One thing you should aware, KYC is becoming a common thing lately so you should be ready if KYC will be a mandatory thing in all online services in the upcoming years.

[KTChampions]

Didn't you notice that almost all sites has a term that they reserve the right to ask you KYC?
Even if you are playing in anonymous gambling site, this term does exist for a reason.
One thing you should aware, KYC is becoming a common thing lately so you should be ready if KYC will be a mandatory thing in all online services in the upcoming years.

The meaning of this option is clear: no site wants to receive money from a stolen credit card and subsequently face charges of laundering the stolen funds. The problem is that most casinos/bookmakers use this option only to delay/or completely cancel payments to players who have been successful.

[mv1986]

Didn't you notice that almost all sites has a term that they reserve the right to ask you KYC?
Even if you are playing in anonymous gambling site, this term does exist for a reason.
One thing you should aware, KYC is becoming a common thing lately so you should be ready if KYC will be a mandatory thing in all online services in the upcoming years.

The meaning of this option is clear: no site wants to receive money from a stolen credit card and subsequently face charges of laundering the stolen funds. The problem is that most casinos/bookmakers use this option only to delay/or completely cancel payments to players who have been successful.

Well said!

Generally, if the KYC stuff was meant to protects players' funds, it would be a different story. But all too often it goes without any reason or rationality that you find yourself in an ugly position with a bookie. Sometimes they don't even accept official documents. It's ridiculous, and the reason usually is NOT to protect players' funds, but to delay and delay.

[mindrust]

Even How those sportsbook mean that they are not requiring KYC as mandatory , but in the end? they may use this KYC to questioned specially those who are winning huge amount as their Terms mostly mentioned this that in any cases that the activity of the gambler is malicious then they will require KYC .
this means one thing that no matter how we wanted to get rid of KYC yet this will come sometimes .

That's not fair and it's a wrong practice, I heard some of that issues on some sportsbooks but the sportsbook I trust, don't require that KYC even if you win big. If they will promote anonymous gambling, then it's a violation of our rights if they'll suddenly require a KYC, it's not within the rules anymore but it's their effort to scam gamblers.

Didn't you notice that almost all sites has a term that they reserve the right to ask you KYC?
Even if you are playing in anonymous gambling site, this term does exist for a reason.
One thing you should aware, KYC is becoming a common thing lately so you should be ready if KYC will be a mandatory thing in all online services in the upcoming years.

Asking for KYC is one thing, refusing to give the deposits back is another.

The casino may ask for casino alright but if they decide to seize the user money, that would be theft. Some casinos afraid of bad publicity so they give the user funds back but some others don't really care. Luckily, the casino that  run ad campaigns here mostly give the user funds back.

[harizen]

The casino may ask for casino alright but if they decide to seize the user money, that would be theft. Some casinos afraid of bad publicity so they give the user funds back but some others don't really care. Luckily, the casino that  run ad campaigns here mostly give the user funds back.

Case-to-case basis. That's why right at the start, gamblers should just use a site that's already reputable and long in the business. Not an assurance that most users will have a smooth transaction as always on that site but at least, we are sure the platform won't do some shitty things regarding the user's deposit money in case got detected using a VPN or any terms that were violated.

[seleme]

Even if the team decided to verify the owner of the account, the user can easily refuse to do so and ask for the deposit back if there is such a term on the user agreement. Just my 2 cents.

The user can do that and there's no choice for the gambling site but to return the deposit, however, isn't it unfair for the gamblers that he could not take his win because his account got flagged for suspicious activities just because he cannot comply with the KYC? I mean, they can fabricate stories just to make sure they'll not pay the gamblers and that's their advantage in this game since we choose to play anonymously.

In the end, it depends on how gambling website managers gonna decide depending on the case. It is completely unfair for the user but he has no choice except for waiting for deposit  back. Anoyonyt has a price, such risks are there no matter we like it or not. Maybe the scama accusation or writing negative reviews on gambling review platforms can accelerate the process but the scammers will never send the deposits back if they wanna to do so. We have seen such cases and know what is the final note for gamblers by sports bookie management.

[agustina2]

Even if the team decided to verify the owner of the account, the user can easily refuse to do so and ask for the deposit back if there is such a term on the user agreement. Just my 2 cents.

The user can do that and there's no choice for the gambling site but to return the deposit, however, isn't it unfair for the gamblers that he could not take his win because his account got flagged for suspicious activities just because he cannot comply with the KYC? I mean, they can fabricate stories just to make sure they'll not pay the gamblers and that's their advantage in this game since we choose to play anonymously.

In the end, it depends on how gambling website managers gonna decide depending on the case. It is completely unfair for the user but he has no choice except for waiting for deposit  back. Anoyonyt has a price, such risks are there no matter we like it or not.

What if the terms will be; "If violated our terms, all balance will be forfeited" then who has to blame there? Can we still apply the point that gambling sites should return the deposit?

I understand it's unfair but since we are all lazy to read the Terms of Service, there's no way they will grant our request to have our deposit money back. Like the famous sayings, ignorance of the law excuses no one.

[chaser15]

Perhaps those users are high rollers? Thats why the casino asked for some personal information to those users in the first place. As a small gambler like me who play with tens of dollar as starting balances, I have never faced such kind of thing.

Good for you then but don't expect the same status and experience in the future. The information from some users regarding KYC on gambling sites is now proof that even a reputable and largest site like Stake is now slowly in the centralization phase.

KYC is something that we can't avoid in the future, whatever the platform is.

[KTChampions]

The meaning of this option is clear: no site wants to receive money from a stolen credit card and subsequently face charges of laundering the stolen funds. The problem is that most casinos/bookmakers use this option only to delay/or completely cancel payments to players who have been successful.

Well said!

Generally, if the KYC stuff was meant to protects players' funds, it would be a different story. But all too often it goes without any reason or rationality that you find yourself in an ugly position with a bookie. Sometimes they don't even accept official documents. It's ridiculous, and the reason usually is NOT to protect players' funds, but to delay and delay.

Yes, if the casino wants to protect the players' funds, then it must require KYC already at the time of their crediting. But we all know that the question of KYC mainly arises at the moment when the player wants to withdraw money. It seems absurd to me. If everything was fine when you accepted my money and I used it in gambling, then everything should be fine at the moment when I decided to withdraw it.

[madnessteat]

Perhaps those users are high rollers? Thats why the casino asked for some personal information to those users in the first place. As a small gambler like me who play with tens of dollar as starting balances, I have never faced such kind of thing.

Good for you then but don't expect the same status and experience in the future. The information from some users regarding KYC on gambling sites is now proof that even a reputable and largest site like Stake is now slowly in the centralization phase.

KYC is something that we can't avoid in the future, whatever the platform is.

I agree because KYC is a mandatory procedure for financial institutions, exchanges, sportsbooks, etc. If some Sportbooks do not require users to pass KYC, it means the regulators have not reached it yet, which will definitely happen in the future. So I would not recommend to use VPN/TOR on Sportbooks which prohibit you to use the platform to avoid possible problems.

[Kelvinid]

Perhaps those users are high rollers? Thats why the casino asked for some personal information to those users in the first place. As a small gambler like me who play with tens of dollar as starting balances, I have never faced such kind of thing.

Good for you then but don't expect the same status and experience in the future. The information from some users regarding KYC on gambling sites is now proof that even a reputable and largest site like Stake is now slowly in the centralization phase.

KYC is something that we can't avoid in the future, whatever the platform is.

I agree because KYC is a mandatory procedure for financial institutions, exchanges, sportsbooks, etc. If some Sportbooks do not require users to pass KYC, it means the regulators have not reached it yet, which will definitely happen in the future. So I would not recommend to use VPN/TOR on Sportbooks which prohibit you to use the platform to avoid possible problems.

We trust a casino based on their reputation and I think they don't need to acquire a license in order to operate as long as there's no legal risk on their side. What I'm trying to say is that, if all of them will get the license, that means they'll be regulated and therefore KYC will become mandatory, so what happen to anonymous gambling then?

[dimonstration]

Perhaps those users are high rollers? Thats why the casino asked for some personal information to those users in the first place. As a small gambler like me who play with tens of dollar as starting balances, I have never faced such kind of thing.

Good for you then but don't expect the same status and experience in the future. The information from some users regarding KYC on gambling sites is now proof that even a reputable and largest site like Stake is now slowly in the centralization phase.

KYC is something that we can't avoid in the future, whatever the platform is.

I agree because KYC is a mandatory procedure for financial institutions, exchanges, sportsbooks, etc. If some Sportbooks do not require users to pass KYC, it means the regulators have not reached it yet, which will definitely happen in the future. So I would not recommend to use VPN/TOR on Sportbooks which prohibit you to use the platform to avoid possible problems.

We trust a casino based on their reputation and I think they don't need to acquire a license in order to operate as long as there's no legal risk on their side. What I'm trying to say is that, if all of them will get the license, that means they'll be regulated and therefore KYC will become mandatory, so what happen to anonymous gambling then?

Casino don't get a license just to boost there reputation. It's just happened that people will trust more the Casino it's compliant to the law before they operate. Licence is a requirements for there business permit. They are not allowed to operate on various country if they don't acquire it and they might face lawsuit once the country that they are operating know this. If you want to run a business smoothly as possible, You will need to abide the law and follow there guidelines so that you can freely operate without worries for your business. That's the usual thinking of a legit casino. A shady or not serious casino usually doesn't think about legal matters and leave to the consumers if they trust them or not. Like a mutual trust system only and no string attached.