bookmaker refusing to do KYC in advance - fortune jack btw-

[EarnOnVictor]

That is a misconception, as submitting a KYC in advance, even if they are going to accept it, doesn't reduce the risk of getting scammed. Just think about it, even if you are fully compliant with the rules but the casino is a scam, you are not exempted; you will be subjected to the same kind of scam they do to others.

But since he is on Fortune Jack I guess that scam incident will likely less to happen. But for encountering an issue provably it cannot give any guarantee that he will not submit again if there will be some cases show up that he need to do KYC again for verification purposes.

So maybe its best for OP to just wait for the casino to ask this so that there's less hassle on his side regarding in this KYC matters and much better for him to gamble only the amount he want to use if he's still interested to gamble in that casino.

FJ has built a good reputation here. They were already here when I started in crypto, and they are still operating while maintaining their good reputation. So yeah, the risk of getting scammed is very low. I don't understand why OP is so worried and assumes that an advance KYC could save him in the future if the casino turns out to be a scam. @OP, please note also that when you violate the TOS, you'll be dealt with accordingly, and KYC won't be a big factor anymore.

Being here for so long is not the matter but the weird experience of the OP, whether you like it or not, it's scary, and I don't know the defence that the casino would have in stopping a customer trying to complete a KYC, I've never heard of such case in my long years of dealing with companies. Companies always appreciate the customers/clients who do what is required by their regulators or the countries they are operating from even if they are not regulated, so this is strange and you should not find any excuse for it.

Also, for the casinos having a presence on Bitcointalk doesn't mean they do not have a single allegation against them in the past. If more customers are losing and a fewer customers are profiting, and even fewer are withdrawing big amounts, don't you think the allegation against them will be little if they are cheating? So don't use that as a basis, the pressing issue is why can a lawful request be rejected.

[Russlenat]

Being here for so long is not the matter but the weird experience of the OP, whether you like it or not, it's scary, and I don't know the defence that the casino would have in stopping a customer trying to complete a KYC, I've never heard of such case in my long years of dealing with companies. Companies always appreciate the customers/clients who do what is required by their regulators or the countries they are operating from even if they are not regulated, so this is strange and you should not find any excuse for it.

I'm not sure if that's something to be worried about when the casino does not allow you to advance KYC. They have their own rules and can implement them as they see fit. As gamblers, we can't dictate their policies, so we can't force what we want. As long as we can gamble, there's nothing to worry about since they won't risk ruining their reputation by doing something foolish. Honestly, I also find it strange when a gambler asks the casino to let them pass the KYC before it's required.

Also, for the casinos having a presence on Bitcointalk doesn't mean they do not have a single allegation against them in the past. If more customers are losing and a fewer customers are profiting, and even fewer are withdrawing big amounts, don't you think the allegation against them will be little if they are cheating? So don't use that as a basis, the pressing issue is why can a lawful request be rejected.

Things aren't complicated, so why make them so? If the casino allows you to gamble without KYC, there should be no issue with that. Similarly, if the casino doesn't allow you to submit KYC yet, there's nothing wrong with that either. There's always the right time for everything, so as gamblers, we should just wait.

[mak013]

The problem is with every casino that allows themselves such way of KYC. Fortune jack is well-known as for me, but they refuse to KYC the gambler when he want. I think that the OP willn`t has problem with KYC in this casino, but he mustn`t make withdrawals to be KYCed.
The only difference between big casino and unknown - big, named casino will pay and the others can steal your prize using ToS and KYC for it.

I think this is no longer the norm as we might imagine. It means that the issue cannot be trusted for some casinos over others in terms of integrity and seniority. The evidence for this is in the accusations section, where there are many serious cases of delayed or disrupted withdrawals under the pretext of completing KYC verification procedures without any clear justification. One of these cases is that a person has winnings worth more than $ 5 million with all guarantees that he did not violate any of the platform’s policies, whether related to games or any possibility of manipulation, and he is prohibited from withdrawing without providing any convincing argument to this day. The platform he used is reliable and known for its integrity and even its financial ability to pay the user’s winnings. There are many who are following the case since the complaining member has promised that he will pursue the platform legally and has confirmed that he is actually in contact with lawyers.

It is true for big players. They try their best to remove chances casino to cheat. They maximally KYCed, don`t break any rules, read the ToS attentively. And they have an opportunity to fight for their money. I know several such situations when the gambler win the process.
But the common gambler hasn`t such opportunities and nobody cares about his rights. It is bad practice, but it is real life. For me - $2.000 is maximum that i can see on my account in the casino. Lawyers will cost much more for me.

[Odohu]

I think this is no longer the norm as we might imagine. It means that the issue cannot be trusted for some casinos over others in terms of integrity and seniority. The evidence for this is in the accusations section, where there are many serious cases of delayed or disrupted withdrawals under the pretext of completing KYC verification procedures without any clear justification. One of these cases is that a person has winnings worth more than $ 5 million with all guarantees that he did not violate any of the platform’s policies, whether related to games or any possibility of manipulation, and he is prohibited from withdrawing without providing any convincing argument to this day. The platform he used is reliable and known for its integrity and even its financial ability to pay the user’s winnings. There are many who are following the case since the complaining member has promised that he will pursue the platform legally and has confirmed that he is actually in contact with lawyers.

It is true for big players. They try their best to remove chances casino to cheat. They maximally KYCed, don`t break any rules, read the ToS attentively. And they have an opportunity to fight for their money. I know several such situations when the gambler win the process.
But the common gambler hasn`t such opportunities and nobody cares about his rights. It is bad practice, but it is real life. For me - $2.000 is maximum that i can see on my account in the casino. Lawyers will cost much more for me.

From my experience, people that have more problems with casinos after winning are the high rollers because they have a lot to lose. I have seen several complaints by players and they mostly come from those with big wins because the small players can just ignore and forget since the amount is small and insignificant. I have not seen much of complaint in the forum from those whose winnings are very small unless where the casino is having a general problem that affect many customers.

Furthermore, I am yet to see a case between a gambler and the casino in the court of law and even if there were, they are very few. All I have seen so far are people whose winnings are in millions and when complaining, they add some kind of threats that they will take legal actions against the casino should their issue not be resolved. I don't know anyone that have actually taken such legal actions and what has beecome the outcome of such actions.

[NotATether]

That is nuts if you ask me.

When you sign up for an exchange for example, they immediately direct you to get verified before you can do anything.

And other casinos like Sportsbet.io allow you to go and verify the stuff immediately, whenever you want to do.

I have never heard of a casino refusing to let you do KYC in advance, unless they are KYC-free. Why would one insist on waiting until you have money to withdraw in order to do KYC?

[PaperWallet]

Asking KYC in the front actually have a good few things, one of them is being mentioned by @OP. To avoid some case they will ask you some KYC once you win a big money, especially people who want to bet big like a few thousand dollars (recommended passed KYC level 3-4) before deposit.

If a casino wants to prevent you from withdrawing your funds with the intention to scam, completing KYC up front will not prevent this. They could come up with a new request like proof of funds or just simply put an accusation on the account that it broke one of their rules.

It doesn't hurt to attempt to do KYC in advance and may be accepted by some websites, but it should not give any security or assurance that funds will be withdrawn when requested.

So true. Happened with me on Fortunejack. Reliable casino with reliable management is a 1000 times better than trying to avoid the casino trick you by doing kyc in advance. If they are thieves, they are thieves, no matter what.

[virasog]

That is nuts if you ask me.

When you sign up for an exchange for example, they immediately direct you to get verified before you can do anything.

And other casinos like Sportsbet.io allow you to go and verify the stuff immediately, whenever you want to do.

I have never heard of a casino refusing to let you do KYC in advance, unless they are KYC-free. Why would one insist on waiting until you have money to withdraw in order to do KYC?

There are two main reason to this.
First, the not so popular casino will want to attract the gamblers that they provide non-KYC casino services and many will gamble there as they do not have to submit KYC documents. There is where you got a lot of minor and children gambling without kyc.

The 2nd reason is that they won't ask for KYC and even let you withdraw small amounts. But as you win big, they will stop your withdraw and make excuses that you need to do kyc first and then they may never approve your kyc so that you can never withdraw.

[Kavelj22]

The problem is with every casino that allows themselves such way of KYC. Fortune jack is well-known as for me, but they refuse to KYC the gambler when he want. I think that the OP willn`t has problem with KYC in this casino, but he mustn`t make withdrawals to be KYCed.
The only difference between big casino and unknown - big, named casino will pay and the others can steal your prize using ToS and KYC for it.

I think this is no longer the norm as we might imagine. It means that the issue cannot be trusted for some casinos over others in terms of integrity and seniority. The evidence for this is in the accusations section, where there are many serious cases of delayed or disrupted withdrawals under the pretext of completing KYC verification procedures without any clear justification. One of these cases is that a person has winnings worth more than $ 5 million with all guarantees that he did not violate any of the platform’s policies, whether related to games or any possibility of manipulation, and he is prohibited from withdrawing without providing any convincing argument to this day. The platform he used is reliable and known for its integrity and even its financial ability to pay the user’s winnings. There are many who are following the case since the complaining member has promised that he will pursue the platform legally and has confirmed that he is actually in contact with lawyers.

It is true for big players. They try their best to remove chances casino to cheat. They maximally KYCed, don`t break any rules, read the ToS attentively. And they have an opportunity to fight for their money. I know several such situations when the gambler win the process.
But the common gambler hasn`t such opportunities and nobody cares about his rights. It is bad practice, but it is real life. For me - $2.000 is maximum that i can see on my account in the casino. Lawyers will cost much more for me.

I really can’t understand the strategy that big players adopt given the amount of risk they have to deal with. They certainly choose certain platforms that they know they can hold legally accountable in case of any problems, but this is always insufficient and does not guarantee that things will always work. I mean, I won’t benefit anything if the case against any of the platforms leads to its forced closure, and in the best case, I will have wasted a lot of time that could have been invested in more productive activity.

Like you, I am not comfortable if my balance in any of the casinos exceeds a few hundred dollars. Despite this, I still see users struggling with the KYC procedures even though the amounts they want to withdraw are very small.

[Ojima-ojo]

I do find it kind of weird that they'd reject a KYC verification when the gambler themselves is the one requesting it. I wonder what their reason is for rejecting your request to undergo KYC.

I am not supporting Fortunejack here, but to be honest, I think that the reason they don’t undergo advance KYC is that it will cost them additional time and labor work. KYC are processed manually at many casinos; hence, the work load for them will increase. They also don’t know whether the user will make a big deposit or not; hence, they don’t want to waste the time and labor on doing KYC verification. If the user makes some shady moves while betting, or if they want to find the source of the deposit, then only they will ask for the KYC. So, OP, if you don’t have any issues with either of the conditions, then deposit, and if they ask for KYC, then go for the process. It’s very simple and easy.

The thing is that, as long as the casino is a KYC compliance casino, there is nothing wrong processing KYC in advance for a player, sometimes, gambler's make such requests so that they could get their account prepared against potential big transactions, let say advance KYC to avoid delay when the need to do KYC arises.

But what also is the issue here is that, the casino rejected the gambler advance KYC request which is something that the gambler have right to get, unless if he has provided wrong documents for verification purposes.

[batang_bitcoin]

It's not a weird request. OP or someone that does want to do it is trying to avoid the hassle and drama that the casino will give to them if ever they want to withdraw later on. I think it's not about any amount that you're about to withdraw but the emotional effect to itself is giving that anxiety for the gambler that why they have to delay the withdrawals just for the KYC when you've asked for it earlier but they don't want to. What's weird is that they should allow this to happen knowing that once they trigger the withdrawal button and asks for it, they'd still ask for it and you have to obey on it for which you've already prepared for.

Its normal request for a user since there are people willing to comply more earlier since what they believe is they can avoid any further issues if KYC has been submitted already. But submitting our KYC early doesn't really mean we are safe from troubles since there still instances that this will be ask if casino find something issues happening in our accounts. But since OP is look at FJ which is reputable so far I guess he just follow the recommendation of the support then continue to gamble if he's comfortable enough for doing it even if his request has been denied.

That is true that early submission of KYC doesn't mean that we're not going to experience some troubles. There's still a possibility that a gambler will experience such and will be asked for more and additional documents whichever is going to take that situation based on the casino that you're playing. And with FJ as OPs choice, it's a good casino and it's known with reputation that has been long here in the forum.

I understand the point of OP on why he want to request that but I guess each casino follow their rules and everything will be asked in proper time. For withdrawals issues when KYC has been asked I guess that is one of the consequences needed to go on and we just make sure to submit everything needed when KYC has been asked so that we can lower the waiting time and make sure that there will be no further delays will happen.

They have to obey what rules they have and as a customer that wants to proceed to kyc too early if not yet asked, also needs to follow the rules just as them.

[mak013]

It is true for big players. They try their best to remove chances casino to cheat. They maximally KYCed, don`t break any rules, read the ToS attentively. And they have an opportunity to fight for their money. I know several such situations when the gambler win the process.
But the common gambler hasn`t such opportunities and nobody cares about his rights. It is bad practice, but it is real life. For me - $2.000 is maximum that i can see on my account in the casino. Lawyers will cost much more for me.

From my experience, people that have more problems with casinos after winning are the high rollers because they have a lot to lose. I have seen several complaints by players and they mostly come from those with big wins because the small players can just ignore and forget since the amount is small and insignificant. I have not seen much of complaint in the forum from those whose winnings are very small unless where the casino is having a general problem that affect many customers.

Furthermore, I am yet to see a case between a gambler and the casino in the court of law and even if there were, they are very few. All I have seen so far are people whose winnings are in millions and when complaining, they add some kind of threats that they will take legal actions against the casino should their issue not be resolved. I don't know anyone that have actually taken such legal actions and what has beecome the outcome of such actions.

I missed to mark that i told about non cryptocurrency casino with lots of offline offices. There were several such courts when the gambler won. I didn`t read all the history, but in the result these casinos paid the prize.

It is true for big players. They try their best to remove chances casino to cheat. They maximally KYCed, don`t break any rules, read the ToS attentively. And they have an opportunity to fight for their money. I know several such situations when the gambler win the process.
But the common gambler hasn`t such opportunities and nobody cares about his rights. It is bad practice, but it is real life. For me - $2.000 is maximum that i can see on my account in the casino. Lawyers will cost much more for me.

I really can’t understand the strategy that big players adopt given the amount of risk they have to deal with. They certainly choose certain platforms that they know they can hold legally accountable in case of any problems, but this is always insufficient and does not guarantee that things will always work. I mean, I won’t benefit anything if the case against any of the platforms leads to its forced closure, and in the best case, I will have wasted a lot of time that could have been invested in more productive activity.

Like you, I am not comfortable if my balance in any of the casinos exceeds a few hundred dollars. Despite this, I still see users struggling with the KYC procedures even though the amounts they want to withdraw are very small.

I think that big players get some guarantees that they can get their money back even if the casino will be closed. We can`t understand how if works until we come to the same level.

[Taskford]

I do find it kind of weird that they'd reject a KYC verification when the gambler themselves is the one requesting it. I wonder what their reason is for rejecting your request to undergo KYC.

I am not supporting Fortunejack here, but to be honest, I think that the reason they don’t undergo advance KYC is that it will cost them additional time and labor work. KYC are processed manually at many casinos; hence, the work load for them will increase. They also don’t know whether the user will make a big deposit or not; hence, they don’t want to waste the time and labor on doing KYC verification. If the user makes some shady moves while betting, or if they want to find the source of the deposit, then only they will ask for the KYC. So, OP, if you don’t have any issues with either of the conditions, then deposit, and if they ask for KYC, then go for the process. It’s very simple and easy.

The thing is that, as long as the casino is a KYC compliance casino, there is nothing wrong processing KYC in advance for a player, sometimes, gambler's make such requests so that they could get their account prepared against potential big transactions, let say advance KYC to avoid delay when the need to do KYC arises.

But what also is the issue here is that, the casino rejected the gambler advance KYC request which is something that the gambler have right to get, unless if he has provided wrong documents for verification purposes.

There's no reason for the casino to decline the wants of their players if they want to do early submission. Since they can verify anyways later on if they find suspicious activities happened and denying the request of their potential loyal costumer could drive them away or they might go on other reputable casino which their request will be granted. For sure this is will not give any issue to both parties and to make their costumer satisfied then they should allow what they want to do as long as there's no illegal intentions on their request asked to them.

So I guess OP already move on into this issue and it maybe good for him if he pursue what he want and also give update if he succeed to do advance KYC in FJ or he just find another alternative casino which he find comfortable to spend his money.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I do find it kind of weird that they'd reject a KYC verification when the gambler themselves is the one requesting it. I wonder what their reason is for rejecting your request to undergo KYC.

I am not supporting Fortunejack here, but to be honest, I think that the reason they don’t undergo advance KYC is that it will cost them additional time and labor work. KYC are processed manually at many casinos; hence, the work load for them will increase. They also don’t know whether the user will make a big deposit or not; hence, they don’t want to waste the time and labor on doing KYC verification. If the user makes some shady moves while betting, or if they want to find the source of the deposit, then only they will ask for the KYC. So, OP, if you don’t have any issues with either of the conditions, then deposit, and if they ask for KYC, then go for the process. It’s very simple and easy.

The thing is that, as long as the casino is a KYC compliance casino, there is nothing wrong processing KYC in advance for a player, sometimes, gambler's make such requests so that they could get their account prepared against potential big transactions, let say advance KYC to avoid delay when the need to do KYC arises.

But what also is the issue here is that, the casino rejected the gambler advance KYC request which is something that the gambler have right to get, unless if he has provided wrong documents for verification purposes.

I want to believe that the possibility of the user providing a wrong document for his or her account verification is also, and might be the reason why the casino have rejected an advance kyc process and verification request.
Think of it this way, the casino thinks that the user may or might not have what it takes to operate a verified account on the platform, and for this reason, he (the gambler) have obtained the required documents from somebody else, and or have hired someone to complete the verification for him at that particular time and moment, and this is why the user is requesting an advance kyc verification, this is what the casino possibly must have thought and reason why the rejected the request.

But then, some casinos really don't care much about such, like I believe I've mentioned a couple of times here that I registered and verified my Stake account in advance, far before I ever thought of depositing a dime there and playing.
This confirms the fact that different casino have different policies and rules, and gamblers can either abide by this rule or look for another casinos with milder rules or so.

[Russlenat]

That is nuts if you ask me.

When you sign up for an exchange for example, they immediately direct you to get verified before you can do anything.

And other casinos like Sportsbet.io allow you to go and verify the stuff immediately, whenever you want to do.

I have never heard of a casino refusing to let you do KYC in advance, unless they are KYC-free. Why would one insist on waiting until you have money to withdraw in order to do KYC?

There are two main reason to this.
First, the not so popular casino will want to attract the gamblers that they provide non-KYC casino services and many will gamble there as they do not have to submit KYC documents. There is where you got a lot of minor and children gambling without kyc.

I think it's not just the casino mentioned in the OP that's guilty of this. The majority of crypto casinos don't require KYC at the early stages, so you can gamble freely without any restrictions on the KYC side. However, that doesn't mean they promote gambling for minors. Even though they are regulated, it's not their responsibility to closely monitor their gamblers. I believe the parents should take on more responsibility when it comes to minors.

The 2nd reason is that they won't ask for KYC and even let you withdraw small amounts. But as you win big, they will stop your withdraw and make excuses that you need to do kyc first and then they may never approve your kyc so that you can never withdraw.

We're talking about scammers here, but these popular casinos, even though they don't require KYC at the early stage, wouldn't try to scam people because they highly value their reputation. It's probably worth millions of dollars to them, as their business relies heavily on maintaining that trust.

[EarnOnVictor]

Being here for so long is not the matter but the weird experience of the OP, whether you like it or not, it's scary, and I don't know the defence that the casino would have in stopping a customer trying to complete a KYC, I've never heard of such case in my long years of dealing with companies. Companies always appreciate the customers/clients who do what is required by their regulators or the countries they are operating from even if they are not regulated, so this is strange and you should not find any excuse for it.

I'm not sure if that's something to be worried about when the casino does not allow you to advance KYC. They have their own rules and can implement them as they see fit. As gamblers, we can't dictate their policies, so we can't force what we want. As long as we can gamble, there's nothing to worry about since they won't risk ruining their reputation by doing something foolish. Honestly, I also find it strange when a gambler asks the casino to let them pass the KYC before it's required.

What I can say about your reply is that you do not have a psychological thought about this. Wait a minute, this casino we are talking about, have you taken your time to learn about their reviews online? Maybe you will be doubtful of the preservation of their reputation as you mentioned because they barely have it high.

There is this adage in my language that in the English language interprets as "Being straightforward makes you plain, but the moment you start cutting corners and deviate from the real way of doing things, then you should be suspected." Even if you are not my native, you should under the meaning very well, and if I must be honest with you, in my many years of dealing with companies, this is the first time I have heard that a company did not let you complete the KYC when you are ready and do not even cite reasons like maintenance and some other valid reasons but claim it is their standard procedure.

And you think this is not weird? Companies might reject one's documents, and that's fine, but for a company to say you should not do what the internal practices will smile about is suspicious. I advise anyone dealing with such a casino to think twice because they might be waiting till when the gambler wins regularly or want to withdraw big before they start making their life miserable. Maybe you will know the meaning of my scepticism if you win big and desperately want to withdraw about $5,000 for immediate good use and they start asking you for the KYC when you do not even have access to them at that time or the ID has expired. Or when they start rejecting your document verification over and over again.

[Russlenat]

Being here for so long is not the matter but the weird experience of the OP, whether you like it or not, it's scary, and I don't know the defence that the casino would have in stopping a customer trying to complete a KYC, I've never heard of such case in my long years of dealing with companies. Companies always appreciate the customers/clients who do what is required by their regulators or the countries they are operating from even if they are not regulated, so this is strange and you should not find any excuse for it.

I'm not sure if that's something to be worried about when the casino does not allow you to advance KYC. They have their own rules and can implement them as they see fit. As gamblers, we can't dictate their policies, so we can't force what we want. As long as we can gamble, there's nothing to worry about since they won't risk ruining their reputation by doing something foolish. Honestly, I also find it strange when a gambler asks the casino to let them pass the KYC before it's required.

What I can say about your reply is that you do not have a psychological thought about this. Wait a minute, this casino we are talking about, have you taken your time to learn about their reviews online? Maybe you will be doubtful of the preservation of their reputation as you mentioned because they barely have it high.

~snip~

What online review sites I should look to know their reputation? I think the forum itself is more reliable than any online reviews, and as AFAIK, FJ doesn't have a negative feedback on their account hence it can be assume that they are not scammers.  And again, why is it a big deal to everyone, as if FJ is trying to scam or something. I like to quote their reply and you can check when you click on the first page.

"Sadly you cannot pass KYC in advance"..
" You will be asked to pass it after withdrawal request"...

What's wrong with that? just pass after withdrawal request, problem solved.

[khaled0111]

Think of it this way, the casino thinks that the user may or might not have what it takes to operate a verified account on the platform, and for this reason, he (the gambler) have obtained the required documents from somebody else, and or have hired someone to complete the verification for him at that particular time and moment, and this is why the user is requesting an advance kyc verification, this is what the casino possibly must have thought and reason why the rejected the request.

In fact, the example you mentioned is just another reason why casinos should let users verify their accounts in advance even before making their first deposit, not the opposite.
If the user is going to use someone else's documents to verify his account then it will be easier for the casino to spot that by asking him to reverify his identity when he is not ready for it (random crosschecks)..

[mak013]

What I can say about your reply is that you do not have a psychological thought about this. Wait a minute, this casino we are talking about, have you taken your time to learn about their reviews online? Maybe you will be doubtful of the preservation of their reputation as you mentioned because they barely have it high.

~snip~

What online review sites I should look to know their reputation? I think the forum itself is more reliable than any online reviews, and as AFAIK, FJ doesn't have a negative feedback on their account hence it can be assume that they are not scammers.  And again, why is it a big deal to everyone, as if FJ is trying to scam or something. I like to quote their reply and you can check when you click on the first page.

"Sadly you cannot pass KYC in advance"..
" You will be asked to pass it after withdrawal request"...

What's wrong with that? just pass after withdrawal request, problem solved.

Wrong is that i have to spend time for KYC and i want my money right now. Wrong is that i can be mistaken in some data and the KYC will find it. I don`t want to know about it in the moment when i`m getting my prize.
The OP is wise man, he tries to minimize risks and casino refuse him. After such refuse i can suppose that casino want to cheat with me in any way during the KYC.

I think that the gambler will not have problem with KYC, FJ is well known casino. But if i want to exclude any mistakes and don`t waste time - i want to have an opportunity to KYC when i want.

[EarnOnVictor]

Being here for so long is not the matter but the weird experience of the OP, whether you like it or not, it's scary, and I don't know the defence that the casino would have in stopping a customer trying to complete a KYC, I've never heard of such case in my long years of dealing with companies. Companies always appreciate the customers/clients who do what is required by their regulators or the countries they are operating from even if they are not regulated, so this is strange and you should not find any excuse for it.

I'm not sure if that's something to be worried about when the casino does not allow you to advance KYC. They have their own rules and can implement them as they see fit. As gamblers, we can't dictate their policies, so we can't force what we want. As long as we can gamble, there's nothing to worry about since they won't risk ruining their reputation by doing something foolish. Honestly, I also find it strange when a gambler asks the casino to let them pass the KYC before it's required.

What I can say about your reply is that you do not have a psychological thought about this. Wait a minute, this casino we are talking about, have you taken your time to learn about their reviews online? Maybe you will be doubtful of the preservation of their reputation as you mentioned because they barely have it high.

~snip~

What online review sites I should look to know their reputation? I think the forum itself is more reliable than any online reviews, and as AFAIK, FJ doesn't have a negative feedback on their account hence it can be assume that they are not scammers.  And again, why is it a big deal to everyone, as if FJ is trying to scam or something. I like to quote their reply and you can check when you click on the first page.

I don't see any point in what you wrote, it's just another insensitive response. I can't imagine why you would mention Bitcointalk as the only place to learn about what people have to say about a casino, that's simply unsmart. FJ has not been without allegations in the past even on the forum to have warranted you having 100% trust in them even when you are not part of the owner(s), but that is not where I am going.

My point is that casinos could play smart on their customers whether you like it or not, and for them to be operating legitimate businesses doesn't mean they can't cheat their customers. Now, if they are doing that, they are not scamming everybody but the individual they've cheated. So generally, they are scams, know the difference. It would also be so reasonable if you conduct both internal and external research about them and not rely on Bitcointalk alone.

To avoid cheating, I advise anyone to run as far as their legs can take them away from the casinos that will not allow them to complete the KYC when they are ready. No serious company would do that.

[delfastTions]

To avoid cheating, I advise anyone to run as far as their legs can take them away from the casinos that will not allow them to complete the KYC when they are ready. No serious company would do that.

I think that in some cases, even large casinos with good recommendations from clients may, for some purpose, refuse the client’s request to confirm his identity through the KYC verification procedure.  There may be several reasons.
 First of all, it is impossible to ensure guaranteed storage of confidential data, or more precisely, the lack of appropriate documents from authorized authorities for the collection of personal data. 
The reason could be, for example, a recent hacking by hackers of the specified database of clients of this casino.  And there are several more reasons for refusing to accept client KYC data from the casino side.  I won't list them. 
So overall I don't see anything particularly strange about the issue being discussed in this thread. You just need to look at this issue from the side of casino administrators, and not from the side of player clients.