BetCrypto.cr, won big now feeling scammed out of 26,000 Euros

[Betcrypto.cr]

We still don't understand some players, they complaint because all online casinos ask them for KYC to withdraw, we launch a 100% no KYC casino with the only rule of no multiple accounts, and they cry when they get caught with another account

The rules are clear if we found someone with multiple accounts we are going to seize the funds, for this player we found a second account, but he could have a third one since we don't do KYC when we found someone with another account the decision is final.


Sorry but next time read the rules

[efialtis]

We still don't understand some players, they complaint because all online casinos ask them for KYC to withdraw, we launch a 100% no KYC casino with the only rule of no multiple accounts, and they cry when they get caught with another account

The rules are clear if we found someone with multiple accounts we are going to seize the funds, for this player we found a second account, but he could have a third one since we don't do KYC when we found someone with another account the decision is final.


Sorry but next time read the rules

You don´t make a lot of sense - how does your "No KYC" policy relate in the first place? The dude closed his account a while ago. The account doesn`t exist anymore. Then he decides to come back. Do you have a rule anywhere that people are not allowed to come back after having their accounts closed? Even if you do... read further:

Ultimately, you wouldn`t have cared at all if the player had lost - you know it.

Even if you are within your rights based on your ToS, it doesn´t mean that what you have done is fair and the right thing to do ethically.

I can only hope that people stay away from pathetic crypto casinos such as yours where owners publically prove how hypocritical they are. Seriously guys, we people in the gambling industry (I am talking operators, affiliates, and even game providers, etc.), couldn`t be more grateful to be in an industry where we can only win if done properly - there is no point in tricking players because of greed.

Oh, and before you come up with any accusation such as "you only see the player's perspectives ": No, I don`t - I have lost count of how many times I concluded that players were in the wrong, I am not generally taking the players`side.

Edit: Your "Next time read the rules" is hilarious - I consider adding you to our blacklist because of your lame attitude alone.

Edit 2: I saw that you weren`t even getting that a Costa Rican gambling license does not exist - this goes to show a lot.

[memehunter]

he could have a third one since we don't do KYC

 

lol.. and I could be Satoshi since YOU DON'T DO KYC.

[aliveNFT]

Everything we know about this case
1. Multiaccounts are prohibited by the rules of the casino and it is impossible to argue with this.
2. Apart from the screenshot with the last line "Disable my account", we don't know anything.
3. Most casinos do not allow you to create an account even if the old one was blocked (personal experience)

From which we can conclude that the casino is not to blame, if I were a player, I would take the deposit and not continue this nonsense, because most likely you will not receive your 26k euros.

[Rating Place]

It's completely unrelated. Hacksaw Gaming is a game developer, not a license provider in the sense of regulatory body.

The "license" said and referred by Fixefelix is a license to integrate Hacksaw Gaming's game into their platform, i.e. an agreement and binding terms that has to be fulfilled by the platforms and players in order to play those games on the said platform.

Hacksaw gaming is all over the place in many jurisdictions. Depending on the laws of the jurisdiction they have a gambling license or gaming supplier license. That’s not needed in Costa Rica but a business license is required. I’m much more familiar with sportsbooks than casinos but I assume that the license for a supplier works in a similar fashion as casinos in Costa Rica.

And the question here was whether betcrypto has a "permission" to integrate hackshaw's games into their platform, and clearly not about Hackshaw's own license in CR like you now explained above, so what's the point you're trying to convey?

I'm not sure the relevance of whether it's pirated or not. The player is owed money and should be paid. Run as far away as you can from this casino.

[holydarkness]

We still don't understand some players, they complaint because all online casinos ask them for KYC to withdraw, we launch a 100% no KYC casino with the only rule of no multiple accounts, and they cry when they get caught with another account

The rules are clear if we found someone with multiple accounts we are going to seize the funds, for this player we found a second account, but he could have a third one since we don't do KYC when we found someone with another account the decision is final.


Sorry but next time read the rules

You don´t make a lot of sense - how does your "No KYC" policy relate in the first place? The dude closed his account a while ago. The account doesn`t exist anymore. Then he decides to come back. Do you have a rule anywhere that people are not allowed to come back after having their accounts closed? Even if you do... read further:

Ultimately, you wouldn`t have cared at all if the player had lost - you know it.

Even if you are within your rights based on your ToS, it doesn´t mean that what you have done is fair and the right thing to do ethically.

[...]

I previously tried to argue that to the casino.

Technically speaking, there is no rule being breached as the OP does not have multiple account. He made one, asked for it to be closed, not even asking for self-exclusion [so betcrypto clearly can't counter-argue with gamble aware regulation], and opened a new one much later. There is no malicious intent on OP's overall behavior, nothing is detrimental to the casino, other than the fact that he won fair and square, no harm made.

Their reply for this matter is as follows:

We are sorry but not exceptions.

Also with his second account he deposited around 7,000 EUROS and withdrew 9,000 euros before our system detected that it was a second account.

Once again we are sorry but the multiple account rule is the most important rule for us.

I'm not sure the relevance of whether it's pirated or not. The player is owed money and should be paid. Run as far away as you can from this casino.

That, I can agree.

[Fixelifix]

To be fair. I wouldn´t deposit a cent to such a casino. Op should be happy that he got his deposits returned.

[holydarkness]

Hi, I was in the middle of doing my weekly sweep through the accusation board --and CG and AG if the cases are linked to those arbitrator-- to update my list, just wanted to let people overseeing this thread that CG ruled the case in favor of the casino.

Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.

Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.

[memehunter]

Hi, I was in the middle of doing my weekly sweep through the accusation board --and CG and AG if the cases are linked to those arbitrator-- to update my list, just wanted to let people overseeing this thread that CG ruled the case in favor of the casino.

Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.

Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.

Thanks for updating us!
This only lower the credibility of CG in my opinion. You can confisticate serious amount of winnings just because of ignoring some pop-up, I mean really this the level of explanation they are giving? The main point is there was no edge in favor of OP by making new account. It is the responsibility of website to detect it while signing up the user. Why they took deposit? If they are so adamant about their anti multi accounting policy?
No matter what CG is saying but I will call a spade a spade.

[Little Mouse]

It is the responsibility of website to detect it while signing up the user. Why they took deposit? If they are so adamant about their anti multi accounting policy?

If you base this standard while choosing a casino, pretty much sure you wont find one single casino. No casino will detect multi account at the time of sign up, neither they will check if the new signed up account is a multi account until you win a big one. It's only possible if casino force KYC at the time of sign up which is unlikely to happen.
I can show you such cases for almost every casino out there including the top reputed casinos.

[Rating Place]

Hi, I was in the middle of doing my weekly sweep through the accusation board --and CG and AG if the cases are linked to those arbitrator-- to update my list, just wanted to let people overseeing this thread that CG ruled the case in favor of the casino.

Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.

Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.

Thanks for updating us!
This only lower the credibility of CG in my opinion. You can confisticate serious amount of winnings just because of ignoring some pop-up, I mean really this the level of explanation they are giving? The main point is there was no edge in favor of OP by making new account. It is the responsibility of website to detect it while signing up the user. Why they took deposit? If they are so adamant about their anti multi accounting policy?
No matter what CG is saying but I will call a spade a spade.

I agree with you. Ruling on a pop up is absurd. What if pop ups were blocked?

[Zwei]

this "casino" is a joke, they have no money.
if they did they would not be running a wordpress website that is connected to some shitty white label casino webapp.



it's only a matter of time before another scam happens.
i would stay light years away from this shit show.

[holydarkness]

Hi, I was in the middle of doing my weekly sweep through the accusation board --and CG and AG if the cases are linked to those arbitrator-- to update my list, just wanted to let people overseeing this thread that CG ruled the case in favor of the casino.

Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.

Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.

[Image snip]

Thanks for updating us!
This only lower the credibility of CG in my opinion.

I'd like to think that CG's credibility is still high. There are instances they go to a length to resolve a case. One that easily come from the top of my head was that they [I think that it was under unofficial capacity, through the initiative of the employee themselves] made an account here just to further explain things surrounding the case to a player.

If any, the disadvantage of arbitrator like CG or AG is that one case got reviewed by one individual and one individual only, where the chance of an oversight is rather big compared to when a case being reviewed by several eyes, each questions and scrutinize on several different aspects.

You can confisticate serious amount of winnings just because of ignoring some pop-up, I mean really this the level of explanation they are giving? The main point is there was no edge in favor of OP by making new account.

The better question will be whether that pop-up already set in place when OP made his second account, or is that an additional feature made only recently by betcrypto to help them with their narrative. I don't think anyone happen to have an archived version or a screenshot of their page displaying that pop-up message in the past, so it's hard to proof from when did that pop-up really being implemented.

It is the responsibility of website to detect it while signing up the user. Why they took deposit? If they are so adamant about their anti multi accounting policy?
No matter what CG is saying but I will call a spade a spade.

Because a credible casino will need many factors to identify and confirm a multi-acc. Upon sign-up, best they can get is IP address and device fingerprints that open to false-positive, not to mention cases where an abuser tries to mask their cheating attempt by using different device and IP. With the progress of the player, connection between an older account and the new ones will be more obvious and the risk of wrong detection [though not completely eliminated] can be somewhat minimized.

[Rating Place]

Hi, I was in the middle of doing my weekly sweep through the accusation board --and CG and AG if the cases are linked to those arbitrator-- to update my list, just wanted to let people overseeing this thread that CG ruled the case in favor of the casino.

Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.

Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.

[Image snip]

Thanks for updating us!
This only lower the credibility of CG in my opinion.

I'd like to think that CG's credibility is still high. There are instances they go to a length to resolve a case. One that easily come from the top of my head was that they [I think that it was under unofficial capacity, through the initiative of the employee themselves] made an account here just to further explain things surrounding the case to a player.

If any, the disadvantage of arbitrator like CG or AG is that one case got reviewed by one individual and one individual only, where the chance of an oversight is rather big compared to when a case being reviewed by several eyes, each questions and scrutinize on several different aspects.

You can confisticate serious amount of winnings just because of ignoring some pop-up, I mean really this the level of explanation they are giving? The main point is there was no edge in favor of OP by making new account.

The better question will be whether that pop-up already set in place when OP made his second account, or is that an additional feature made only recently by betcrypto to help them with their narrative. I don't think anyone happen to have an archived version or a screenshot of their page displaying that pop-up message in the past, so it's hard to proof from when did that pop-up really being implemented.

It is the responsibility of website to detect it while signing up the user. Why they took deposit? If they are so adamant about their anti multi accounting policy?
No matter what CG is saying but I will call a spade a spade.

Because a credible casino will need many factors to identify and confirm a multi-acc. Upon sign-up, best they can get is IP address and device fingerprints that open to false-positive, not to mention cases where an abuser tries to mask their cheating attempt by using different device and IP. With the progress of the player, connection between an older account and the new ones will be more obvious and the risk of wrong detection [though not completely eliminated] can be somewhat minimized.

An arbitrator is only as good as his last ruling. This one was wrong whether it came from the top or bottom of CG. Previous cases don't have anything to do with this case and should be ignored.