👑🏆👑BITZ.io Cryptocasino| 5 BTC Daily withdrawal | $1.5kk lvl up reward 👑🏆👑

[ptaylor78]

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-self-excluded

https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/bitz-casino-responsible-gaming-failure-at-bitz-after-gambling-addiction-disclosure

Bitz is well aware of all the details of this complaint. As virasog noted, if Bitz doesn’t care enough about its reputation to reply here or to third party mediators, what makes you think creating a brand new thread will cause them to be responsive?

Bottom line is that your suggestion that Bitz being "attacked" in their ANN is the reason why I haven't received substantive response from Bitz is not supported by the record. Bitz has decided to hide and be silent across all online platforms, while continuing to promote themselves on Bitcointalk.

If that is genuinely your takeaway after reading the complaint and reviewing the evidence, then the problem is not the record. It is your reading comprehension.

This is not a player asking for a refund after losing. The complaint documents pre-deposit responsible gambling violations, written disclosure of gambling addiction, repeated self-exclusion requests, denial of safeguards, and continued acceptance of deposits while Bitz claimed those safeguards were unavailable. That distinction is fundamental. You missed it entirely.

Framing this as “you lost gambling, take responsibility” ignores the core issue and conveniently mirrors Bitz’s talking points. That makes your position clear. Whether by choice or incentive, you are defending the casino rather than engaging with the facts.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want. But dismissing documented evidence and reducing this to a bad-beat narrative does not rebut the complaint. It simply confirms why Bitz’s silence and reliance on loyal campaign participants speaks louder than any actual defense.

“When someone shows you who they are the first time, believe them.” That applies to you here.

Your attempt to blunt the momentum of this dispute by mischaracterizing the record is noted. The conclusions you posted are not supported by the evidence and mirror Bitz’s preferred narrative rather than the documented facts. I’m sure your efforts are appreciated on their end.

It’s also telling that your questions after reviewing the evidence differ so starkly from those raised by individuals  without an obvious bias. That contrast speaks for itself. About what one would expect from a ‘senior’ member carrying a Bitz banner in their signature.

By your logic, players should be lining up at Bitz demanding a 50% refund every time they lose, since Bitz will obviously provide it.

Your claim that Bitz has a ‘solid reputation,’ made while wearing a huge Bitz banner in your signature, is difficult to take seriously.

You requested correction if you’re wrong… Consider yourself corrected. You get an A for effort as a Bitz “homer” but you’re not dealing with someone susceptible to the type of interference you are running…

[bitmover]

If that is genuinely your takeaway after reading the complaint and reviewing the evidence, then the problem is not the record. It is your reading comprehension.

This is not a player asking for a refund after losing. The complaint documents pre-deposit responsible gambling violations, written disclosure of gambling addiction, repeated self-exclusion requests, denial of safeguards, and continued acceptance of deposits while Bitz claimed those safeguards were unavailable. That distinction is fundamental. You missed it entirely.

Framing this as “you lost gambling, take responsibility” ignores the core issue and conveniently mirrors Bitz’s talking points. That makes your position clear. Whether by choice or incentive, you are defending the casino rather than engaging with the facts.

You bet 13k and lost. If you had won 13k would you give back?

I am sorry for your loss, but this is how world works. I may be wrong in some sense, because bitz is even giving you back 5k which I find very impressive.

A bet is a bet. You cannot lose and then " i am sorry, I am addicted,  give me back money "

This is also true for trading. People also losemoney trading.
 
I am impressed that bitz even decided to refund you 50% of your losses...

This has nothing to do with my signature. This is my opinion. I have lost and I have won. But I have never asked for refund when I lost.

Good luck in your claim.

[ptaylor78]

You bet 13k and lost. If you had won 13k would you give back?

I am sorry for your loss, but this is how world works. I may be wrong in some sense, because bitz is even giving you back 5k which I find very impressive.

A bet is a bet. You cannot lose and then " i am sorry, I am addicted,  give me back money "

This is also true for trading. People also losemoney trading.
 
I am impressed that bitz even decided to refund you 50% of your losses...

This has nothing to do with my signature. This is my opinion. I have lost and I have won. But I have never asked for refund when I lost.

Good luck in your claim.

Your takeaway misses every material fact in the record, so let me simplify this for you. This dispute is not about losing a bet or asking for a refund after the fact. It’s about documented misconduct by the operator. Since you seem to be overlooking the basics, here is a short list of what actually happened.

   1.   Self-exclusion was requested before any deposit was made or bet placed.
         This was not a post-loss excuse. It was a time-zero request. Signed up for Bitz December 7 and requested exclusion hours later, pre-deposit.

   2.   Bitz acknowledged the self-exclusion request and then refused to apply it.
         That is a direct breach of their own responsible gambling obligations.

   3.   The Responsible Gaming and Self-Exclusion system was nonfunctional for weeks.
         Bitz admitted it was “under maintenance” from December 7 through January 2.

   4.   Bitz claimed manual safeguards were impossible.
         No account block. No deposit limits. No exclusion. All denied.

   5.   Bitz continued accepting deposits and promoting gambling while safeguards were unavailable.
         That is operating without protections.

   6.   Bitz’s own Self-Exclusion Policy explicitly allowed exclusion by emailing support.
         They ignored those emails.

   7.   Bitz removed the Self-Exclusion Policy from its website mid-dispute.
         That is concealment of governing terms after deficiencies were exposed.

   8.   Manual exclusion was applied only after escalation and a formal demand.
         Proving manual action was always possible.

   9.   A $5,000 refund offer followed while Bitz retained roughly $8,800.
         That is damage control, not goodwill.

   10.   Bitz refused to cooperate with AskGamblers, causing the complaint to close.
           Silence was a choice.

   11.   This is not about losing a bet.
           It is about denying safeguards, misrepresentation, concealment, and stonewalling.

I’ll remain active in this ANN to hold Bitz accountable, so if the goal today was to run interference or derail the discussion, it hasn’t worked. That said, I won’t be engaging with you further. Your responses show a disregard for the evidence that would disqualify you from any serious evaluation of the facts.

Respectfully, bitmover, you should step back from this discussion.

Your comments add nothing of value and only derail the process. Being a homer for a sports team is fine. Being a homer for a casino that violated its own Responsible Gambling obligations, while wearing its banner, is not.

Your personal views on responsible gambling are irrelevant. Once a casino advertises RG protections and embeds them in its terms, compliance is not optional. Every reputable operator understands this.

Defending violations because the casino pays you undermines your credibility. It’s disappointing, and frankly, unbecoming of a senior member.

[Kelvinid]

I understand why some casinos may not have been cooperative in responding to issues in the forum, as this approach helps avoid drama and ensures that important information is not lost in the thread. It makes more sense for them to handle these matters privately, where they can focus on actually resolving the problem.

I believe BITZ.io addresses the issue responsibly, but, of course, some people still complain, despite being wrong.

If I were a casino owner, I probably wouldn’t tolerate that either. Honestly, many gamblers insist that they are right when they are completely wrong. And they keep arguing. Therefore, to stop it, casinos won't respond to them altogether.

[bitmover]

   1.   Self-exclusion was requested before any deposit was made or bet placed.
         This was not a post-loss excuse. It was a time-zero request. Signed up for Bitz December 7 and requested exclusion hours later, pre-deposit.
[/url]

   2.   Bitz acknowledged the self-exclusion request and then refused to apply it.
 

Bitz didn't acknowledged. They said they would close after 7 days, and you ignored their rules and internal policies.


You started attacking Bitz, as if they did something wrong like scamming your money.
When I joined the conversation and asked you to add details, you decided to attack me since your first post. I didn't attack you at all. I just think you are wrong.

This was my last response to ptaylor78 .

I believe BITZ.io addresses the issue responsibly, but, of course, some people still complain, despite being wrong.

If I were a casino owner, I probably wouldn’t tolerate that either. Honestly, many gamblers insist that they are right when they are completely wrong. And they keep arguing. Therefore, to stop it, casinos won't respond to them altogether.

As I first suggest, the best is to open a separate thread in the scam accusations board. If someone agrees with OP, they can open a flag and tag Bitz. That is the correct approach, not arguing here...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0

[ptaylor78]

I understand why some casinos may not have been cooperative in responding to issues in the forum, as this approach helps avoid drama and ensures that important information is not lost in the thread. It makes more sense for them to handle these matters privately, where they can focus on actually resolving the problem.

I believe BITZ.io addresses the issue responsibly, but, of course, some people still complain, despite being wrong.

If I were a casino owner, I probably wouldn’t tolerate that either. Honestly, many gamblers insist that they are right when they are completely wrong. And they keep arguing. Therefore, to stop it, casinos won't respond to them altogether.

This complaint is documented, evidence-based, and currently under review by independent mediators. General opinions about gamblers or forum ‘drama’ are not responsive to the record.
--

The only thing under attack here is bitmover’s reading comprehension and ability to process the actual record. Everything he just claimed is incorrect and unsupported by the evidence.

Bitz did acknowledge the request.
They acknowledged receipt of the self-exclusion request and stated a 7-day exclusion would apply. The problem is not acknowledgment. The problem is that they then said the mechanism to start it was unavailable and refused to apply any safeguards.

I did not ignore their rules. They failed to follow them.
Their own Self-Exclusion Policy (which they later removed) explicitly allowed self-exclusion by contacting support. Their Terms directed players to a Responsible Gaming section that was non-functional. When the tool was unavailable, they still had a duty to act manually. They later proved manual action was possible by eventually doing it.



And this is exactly how the Senior Editor of Casinos.org successfully self-excluded under Bitz’s own stated terms before the casino later abandoned that process and went rogue claiming that manual exclusion was impossible.



--

Most likely this will still fall on deaf ears given your obvious alignment, but perhaps an analogy will help clarify where your reasoning breaks down, bitmover.

This situation is like a bank acknowledging a fraud report, confirming the account should be frozen, and then saying the freeze function is broken so transactions will continue until IT fixes it. The acknowledgment is irrelevant. The duty is to act immediately.

That is exactly what happened here. Bitz acknowledged the self-exclusion request and agreed a 7-day exclusion was required, then claimed the mechanism to start it was unavailable and refused to apply any safeguards. Acknowledgment without implementation is not compliance. It is failure.

Your personal views on responsible gambling are irrelevant. Once a casino advertises responsible gambling and embeds it in its terms, it has a legal and operational obligation to honor it.

Bitz didn't acknowledged. They said they would close after 7 days, and you ignored their rules and internal policies.

Por algum motivo, você continua ignorando o ponto central. A Bitz reconheceu o pedido e afirmou que um período de autoexclusão de 7 dias era obrigatório. O problema é que, ao mesmo tempo, declarou que a autoexclusão não podia ser iniciada porque a ferramenta de Jogo Responsável estava em manutenção e indisponível por tempo indeterminado.

Você não pode exigir que uma condição seja cumprida e, ao mesmo tempo, tornar impossível cumpri-la, e depois alegar que seguiu as regras. Reconhecer um pedido enquanto se recusa a implementá-lo não é cumprir as regras. É uma falha em agir.

Esse é o ponto que você insiste em ignorar. Talvez assim fique mais fácil de entender agora. É impossível ter uma discussão significativa com alguém como bitmover, que prioriza crenças pessoais em detrimento dos termos, regras e obrigações que regem a situação. Nesse ponto, os fatos deixam de importar. As provas tornam-se irrelevantes. (It’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone like Bitmover who prioritizes personal beliefs over the actual terms, rules, and obligations governing the situation. At that point, facts no longer matter. Evidence is irrelevant.)

[jcojci]

The site have logout feature that will logout the account if no activity. I think this is ok and can prevent something harm to your account.

It's not a good feature in my opinion. Previously, I thought it was different on my browser, but after a while, I figured I needed to log in again if I stay away for a long time. It will be better if they just put a withdrawal code, so you need to input the code before you withdraw than logging me out frequently.
With a withdrawal code, even if someone else gets the account, they cant take out anything that is in the account.
Or better still, they can make the "logout" feature optional. Just make sure people who are disabling it bare the burden of any risk that may happen to the account.

It seems Bitz.io already modified logout feature because I don't have to login when I visited the site. It shows the last page I opened yesterday and when I clicked refresh on the browser, the page still shows my account without I need to re-login.

They heared what we suggested so there is no problem about annoying of login.

How about you? Do you need to re-login or have the same thing as me?

[TryNinja]

Man, must be good being "addicted" to gambling.

First, you ask for a casino to exclude your account.
If for some reason they do not do that, you just deposit anyways, lose your money, and feel in your right to complain that they did not do enough and that you demand the money back.

If you win, you WITHDRAW all your earnings and buy a nice dinner.

Life is good when you have no own responsibility.

Honestly, I hope Bitz and every other casino does the same: Offer and fix the broken self inclusion, ok. But do not refund anyone. Dude is an adult and he should deal with his own actions and addictions. And obviously that's just my opinion.

[Pmalek]

I feels the site is a bit slowly than yesterday. This is my first login on this day. Anybody have the same as me? Hope that is just from my end and not from the server.

Bitz has always run a bit slower than other casino sites in my experience. It takes a bit time to get used to it but afterwards it's fine. I haven't noticed that it has slowed down additionally yesterday. I did have issues with it in the past, when trying to access it with my uBlock Origin ad blocker turned on. If you are using an ad blocker on your machine to block ads, turn it off for Bitz and see if the site works better from that moment on.

[ultrloa]

Man, must be good being "addicted" to gambling.

First, you ask for a casino to exclude your account.
If for some reason they do not do that, you just deposit anyways, lose your money, and feel in your right to complain that they did not do enough and that you demand the money back.

If you win, you WITHDRAW all your earnings and buy a nice dinner.

Life is good when you have no own responsibility.

Honestly, I hope Bitz and every other casino does the same: Offer and fix the broken self inclusion, ok. But do not refund anyone. Dude is an adult and he should deal with his own actions and addictions. And obviously that's just my opinion.

The question is why the casino won't do that since in first place if the user request for self exclusion they should grant the request of the user.

But even if the casino didn't take any action on their request still its personal responsibilities of the gambler to stop and don't gamble, because if they decide to continue and bust all they have these people should not complain since its their personal decision to gamble on same casino.

Its crazy to know that if they win they get happy, but if they lose they come here and complain about those matters. then try to demand for possible refunds because of those pending request they made.

Responsibilities should  not be one sided and people need to grow up to avoid committing this mistakes.

[macson]

-.-

Honestly, I hope Bitz and every other casino does the same: Offer and fix the broken self inclusion, ok. But do not refund anyone. Dude is an adult and he should deal with his own actions and addictions. And obviously that's just my opinion.

Users like this continue to exist, and they always make excuses for their own mistakes. They claim they're vulnerable and the casino should have protected them from their addiction, which I find rather ridiculous.

These are adults and should be responsible for themselves. They keep blaming the casino for protecting them, even though they themselves were the ones gambling irresponsibly in the first place.

I understand why Bitz ignores them. It's simply ridiculous to comply with their demands.

[ptaylor78]

Man, must be good being "addicted" to gambling.

First, you ask for a casino to exclude your account.
If for some reason they do not do that, you just deposit anyways, lose your money, and feel in your right to complain that they did not do enough and that you demand the money back.

If you win, you WITHDRAW all your earnings and buy a nice dinner.

Life is good when you have no own responsibility.

Honestly, I hope Bitz and every other casino does the same: Offer and fix the broken self inclusion, ok. But do not refund anyone. Dude is an adult and he should deal with his own actions and addictions. And obviously that's just my opinion.

The question is why the casino won't do that since in first place if the user request for self exclusion they should grant the request of the user.

But even if the casino didn't take any action on their request still its personal responsibilities of the gambler to stop and don't gamble, because if they decide to continue and bust all they have these people should not complain since its their personal decision to gamble on same casino.

Its crazy to know that if they win they get happy, but if they lose they come here and complain about those matters. then try to demand for possible refunds because of those pending request they made.

Responsibilities should  not be one sided and people need to grow up to avoid committing this mistakes.

Users like this continue to exist, and they always make excuses for their own mistakes. They claim they're vulnerable and the casino should have protected them from their addiction, which I find rather ridiculous.

These are adults and should be responsible for themselves. They keep blaming the casino for protecting them, even though they themselves were the ones gambling irresponsibly in the first place.

I understand why Bitz ignores them. It's simply ridiculous to comply with their demands.

I’ll address everyone together one time only, because the same misconception keeps repeating.

As much as you may want them to, personal views do not trump written terms.

Once Bitz acknowledged a self-exclusion request citing gambling addiction, compliance was mandatory. Not discretionary. Not optional.

“Personal responsibility” is not a substitute for compliance with published Terms of Service or responsible gambling obligations. Bitz chose to advertise those protections. Bitz chose to include them in its terms. By doing so, Bitz bound itself to enforce them.

The same logic applies elsewhere in the terms. Bitz requires a 3x rollover on deposits for live games. If someone’s personal opinion is that it should be 1x, the term does not disappear. Opinions do not rewrite contracts.

None of the arguments being made defend Bitz’s conduct under its own TOS or accepted industry standards. They rely entirely on personal belief. Once contractual obligations attach, those beliefs are irrelevant. That is why these defenses fail.

I am looking for members who can defend Bitz’s actions based on its own terms and stated responsible gambling obligations.

Specifically, I am looking for someone who can explain, under Bitz’s rules, why it was permissible to refuse a self-exclusion request, claim manual exclusion was impossible, then later apply manual exclusion anyway. I am also looking for someone who can justify the removal of Bitz’s Self-Exclusion Policy from its website on December 19 during an active dispute.

Everyone is entitled to personal views about addiction and personal responsibility. I am not saying you shouldn’t hold those views. What I am saying is that personal ideology is not relevant to this dispute. The issue is whether Bitz complied with the rules it chose to publish and promote.

If someone wants to engage on this matter using the governing terms and obligations, I am open to that discussion. I am not interested in debating personal views that do not override the rules Bitz chose to publish and promote.

In legal disputes, jurors do not decide cases based on personal ideology. The law is given. The facts are evaluated against it. Personal opinions do not change the governing rules.

This dispute works the same way. Bitz’s Terms of Service and stated responsible gambling obligations are the law of the case. Personal beliefs do not override contractual duties. Missing that distinction is why this discussion keeps going in circles.

[Bitz_Casino]

💻 International Technology Day at Bitz.io

When everything loads fast, nothing lags,
and the game flows smoothly — technology is doing its job.

Today at Bitz, it’s all about those invisible details:
quiet, reliable, and essential ⚙️

International Technology Day at Bitz —
where technology simply works, so you can just play 🚀

[ptaylor78]

💻 International Technology Day at Bitz.io

When everything loads fast, nothing lags,
and the game flows smoothly — technology is doing its job.

Today at Bitz, it’s all about those invisible details:
quiet, reliable, and essential ⚙️

International Technology Day at Bitz —
where technology simply works, so you can just play 🚀

Hello Bitz_Casino:

Given that it is “International Technology Day” at Bitz, where technology simply works, I have a question related to that claim.

On December 7, Bitz stated that the Responsible Gaming section was temporarily unavailable due to maintenance and was being worked on by the technical team. At that time, navigating to the Responsible Gaming page at https://bitz.io/responsible-gaming led to a dead page.  Fast forward thirty days to today January 6. The Responsible Gaming section link has now been removed from the player dashboard entirely. Navigating directly to the same link (https://bitz.io/responsible-gaming) still leads to a dead page.

So, on International Technology Day at Bitz, where technology simply works, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the technical team is still actively working on this section or whether the project has been abandoned. This question matters because Section 6.8 of Bitz’s Terms and Conditions (https://bitz.io/terms) still states the following:

“Please remember that betting is purely for entertainment and pleasure and you should stop as soon as it stops being fun. Absolutely do not bet anything you can’t afford to lose. If you feel that you are losing control over your gambling behavior, we offer a self-exclusion option. You can enable this setting through the Responsible Gaming section in your account dashboard on the website.”

It does not require much legal or technical insight to see the problem here. Section 6.8 continues to direct players to safeguards that appear to have been nonfunctional for at least thirty days. This concern is compounded by the December 19 removal of Bitz’s Self-Exclusion Policy at https://bitz.io/self-policy, which previously allowed self-exclusion requests via email.

So again, on International Technology Day at Bitz, where technology simply works, the question is straightforward. Is this an ongoing technical issue, or has Bitz decided to stop offering responsible gambling tools while continuing to reference them in its published terms?

[jcojci]

I feels the site is a bit slowly than yesterday. This is my first login on this day. Anybody have the same as me? Hope that is just from my end and not from the server.

Bitz has always run a bit slower than other casino sites in my experience. It takes a bit time to get used to it but afterwards it's fine. I haven't noticed that it has slowed down additionally yesterday. I did have issues with it in the past, when trying to access it with my uBlock Origin ad blocker turned on. If you are using an ad blocker on your machine to block ads, turn it off for Bitz and see if the site works better from that moment on.

I feels better yesterday accessing Bitz.io than few days ago. They are doing good with their job and I am sure they will improve more better in the future.

I don't activating ad blocker in my browser and I don't have a problem accessing any sites.

But it will depends on your Internet ISP because if they have lack, your connection will gets the effect.

[bitmover]

Users like this continue to exist, and they always make excuses for their own mistakes. They claim they're vulnerable and the casino should have protected them from their addiction, which I find rather ridiculous.

These are adults and should be responsible for themselves. They keep blaming the casino for protecting them, even though they themselves were the ones gambling irresponsibly in the first place.

I understand why Bitz ignores them. It's simply ridiculous to comply with their demands.

There should be fun tokens which do not cost any money for individuals like that.

They can play, win or lose, they wont make or lose money.

If someone decides to deposit real money, then gamble real money, they should be ready to lose money as well.

It is easy if you cant lose money, but if you win you can withdrawal lol

[Pmalek]

There should be fun tokens which do not cost any money for individuals like that.

They can play, win or lose, they wont make or lose money.

Most casinos allow players to experience their games in demo mode. Not live dealer games, but at least slot games. Since this is Bitz's thread, we can use them as an example. Just find the slot game you want to play, hover over it with your mouse and select "Demo." There are two buttons: "Demo" and "Play." In demo mode, you will still be playing the real thing but you can't win or lose anything.

[ptaylor78]

Users like this continue to exist, and they always make excuses for their own mistakes. They claim they're vulnerable and the casino should have protected them from their addiction, which I find rather ridiculous.

These are adults and should be responsible for themselves. They keep blaming the casino for protecting them, even though they themselves were the ones gambling irresponsibly in the first place.

I understand why Bitz ignores them. It's simply ridiculous to comply with their demands.

There should be fun tokens which do not cost any money for individuals like that.

They can play, win or lose, they wont make or lose money.

If someone decides to deposit real money, then gamble real money, they should be ready to lose money as well.

It is easy if you cant lose money, but if you win you can withdrawal lol

There should be places reserved for people who believe rules, laws, terms, and contracts only apply when convenient. Places where you can freely cherry-pick which provisions have force based on personal ideology.

That is not how contracts work.

Section 6.8 of Bitz’s Terms of Service and its Self-Exclusion Policy are no less binding than any other section of the TOS. They are not optional. They are not aspirational. They carry the same force as wagering requirements, withdrawal limits, and country restrictions.

If personal beliefs could override written terms, then no part of a casino’s TOS would be enforceable. A player could ignore rollover requirements. A casino could ignore withdrawal obligations. Both could simply claim disagreement and move on.

Because you cannot defend Bitz’s conduct under its own published terms, you are left relying on how you feel about addiction and personal responsibility. Those feelings are irrelevant here. They were irrelevant on Monday, and they remain irrelevant now.

I advised you on Monday to sit this one out. That advice stands. Your posts are not persuasive on the merits because they do not engage with the governing terms. Emotions and personal beliefs do not move the needle here.

This dispute is governed by written rules. When those rules are  inconvenient, they do not disappear. Feel free to open your own casino (in line with your feelings on personal responsibility) where players can play with “fun tokens” and there are no provisions for responsible gambling or self-exclusion.

Official bitmover Dispute Playbook
If the written terms are on your side, argue the written terms.
If the factual record is on your side, argue the factual record.
If neither the written terms nor the factual record are on your side, fall back on opinion, personal beliefs, moral judgments, or rhetoric.

Honestly, I hope Bitz and every other casino does the same: Offer and fix the broken self inclusion, ok. And obviously that's just my opinion.

Correct.

[bhadz]

There should be fun tokens which do not cost any money for individuals like that.

They can play, win or lose, they wont make or lose money.

If someone decides to deposit real money, then gamble real money, they should be ready to lose money as well.

It is easy if you cant lose money, but if you win you can withdrawal lol

Even not fun tokens, just demo modes but both will do as they're having play money to just enjoy the games without having to take risk. The aura changes when it comes to real money and real gamble happens. Very easy to think of winning and just withdraw when it's the result. But when losing, there's a need to accept it rather than looking to blame the casino when they didn't pushed us to gamble and deposit in the first place.

[ptaylor78]

Even not fun tokens, just demo modes but both will do as they're having play money to just enjoy the games without having to take risk. The aura changes when it comes to real money and real gamble happens. Very easy to think of winning and just withdraw when it's the result. But when losing, there's a need to accept it rather than looking to blame the casino when they didn't pushed us to gamble and deposit in the first place.

This is a weak and outdated take.

No one is disputing the risk inherent in gambling real money. Besides you not appreciating that self-exclusion was requested multiple times and refused before a single deposit was made, accepting losses is not even the issue.

The issue is enforcement of the casino’s own Terms of Service. Selective enforcement. Retroactive application. Ignoring self-exclusion requests. Continuing to accept deposits after clear notice. Blocking withdrawals while still allowing wagering. Those are compliance failures, not player entitlement.

If your position is that once real money is deposited, the casino owes nothing beyond “you might lose,” then be consistent. Please list which other provisions of Bitz’s TOS you believe are meaningless. AML. Responsible gaming. Self-exclusion. Account closure. Jurisdiction restrictions. Withdrawal processing standards.

You cannot argue personal responsibility on the player side while dismissing contractual responsibility on the operator side. That position collapses under basic scrutiny.

Accepting loss is part of gambling. Accepting violations of the operator’s own rules is not.

I’m going to disengage from this particular aspect of the discussion. There’s no point engaging with people who refuse to use actual facts or the applicable terms. It’s comical watching the same people cite the TOS for KYC, multi-accounting, bonus abuse, country restrictions, withdrawal limits, and betting rules, then suddenly pretend the TOS does not matter when responsible gaming duties and self-exclusion come into play.