[UNRESOLVED]Rollbit SCAMS money from restricted players with 0% chance of lose

[holydarkness]

Umm... I don't think there is much that a casino can do, any casino, when the root of the situation is their provider inquiring for investigation. They have to comply to this and their hands are as tied as the players. So, basically, the situation with providers can happen to any casino, and it's quite unfair to make the casino [again, any casino] bear the burden for it.

The casino isn’t required to hold the player’s money. The casino has chosen to hold the player’s money. The ultimate decision on whether to pay or not, when under provider review, is always determined by the casino.

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

Umm... I don't think there is much that a casino can do, any casino, when the root of the situation is their provider inquiring for investigation. They have to comply to this and their hands are as tied as the players. So, basically, the situation with providers can happen to any casino, and it's quite unfair to make the casino [again, any casino] bear the burden for it.

The only way to fix it is to cancel the deal with the provider if the casino think the provider is not allowing them to do their [casino brands] business. When the reputation will be lost then the casino will loss it not the provider. I do not think giving the blame to the provider also justify the loss of the players.

I don't think it's the case where a provider doesn't allow a casino to do business, it's more like the provider needed to take a deeper look into the betting activity to rule out any possibility of foul play. If a casino cancel a deal with provider every time provider asks for investigation, I don't think there will be much game can be played on that casino.

[Rating Place]

Umm... I don't think there is much that a casino can do, any casino, when the root of the situation is their provider inquiring for investigation. They have to comply to this and their hands are as tied as the players. So, basically, the situation with providers can happen to any casino, and it's quite unfair to make the casino [again, any casino] bear the burden for it.

The casino isn’t required to hold the player’s money. The casino has chosen to hold the player’s money. The ultimate decision on whether to pay or not, when under provider review, is always determined by the casino.

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

Umm... I don't think there is much that a casino can do, any casino, when the root of the situation is their provider inquiring for investigation. They have to comply to this and their hands are as tied as the players. So, basically, the situation with providers can happen to any casino, and it's quite unfair to make the casino [again, any casino] bear the burden for it.

The only way to fix it is to cancel the deal with the provider if the casino think the provider is not allowing them to do their [casino brands] business. When the reputation will be lost then the casino will loss it not the provider. I do not think giving the blame to the provider also justify the loss of the players.

I don't think it's the case where a provider doesn't allow a casino to do business, it's more like the provider needed to take a deeper look into the betting activity to rule out any possibility of foul play. If a casino cancel a deal with provider every time provider asks for investigation, I don't think there will be much game can be played on that casino.

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

I’ll use sports betting as an example. The odds provider puts up a bad line. The book now has a chance to pay winners or cancel wagers. The decision lies with the book.

This line will be bad at all books using the same provider. For some reason in the recent casino cases, the bugs only occur at Rollbit and BC.game.

[holydarkness]

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

It's not that it didn't sink in, bluntly, I simply question the correctness of your statement, that the fund transfer happen between player and casino, that the provider doesn't involved in any. Is this a fact known with 100% certainty from you? Because, the reason I question the correctness of it and choose to take it as mere words instead of commiting it to my memory, from several conversation I have with casinos across many past cases, they have to pay the provider back for forfeited bets and/or the provider tell them which fund is payable to the player and which fund is not.

Riddle me this simple question, if the entire transaction and activity happens between casino and player, then what's the role of the provider? They simply provide a game script, let it be licensed to be played on a casino, and the casino paid certain amount for contract on certain period? Or perhaps other similar scenario?

And, since this is a scam accusation board, I'll certainly appreciate if your explanation can be supplemented with some kind of backup evidence to support that statement, that provider doesn't involved, and casino doesn't have any monetary obligation to the provider for bets being settled vs forfeited. I can produce mine --a rather fresh one, in fact-- if you do [with well-placed censor to ascertain privacy of the nature of the case, the casino, the player, the thread, the situation, and all, of course]

[Rating Place]

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

It's not that it didn't sink in, bluntly, I simply question the correctness of your statement, that the fund transfer happen between player and casino, that the provider doesn't involved in any. Is this a fact known with 100% certainty from you? Because, the reason I question the correctness of it and choose to take it as mere words instead of commiting it to my memory, from several conversation I have with casinos across many past cases, they have to pay the provider back for forfeited bets and/or the provider tell them which fund is payable to the player and which fund is not.

Riddle me this simple question, if the entire transaction and activity happens between casino and player, then what's the role of the provider? They simply provide a game script, let it be licensed to be played on a casino, and the casino paid certain amount for contract on certain period? Or perhaps other similar scenario?

And, since this is a scam accusation board, I'll certainly appreciate if your explanation can be supplemented with some kind of backup evidence to support that statement, that provider doesn't involved, and casino doesn't have any monetary obligation to the provider for bets being settled vs forfeited. I can produce mine --a rather fresh one, in fact-- if you do [with well-placed censor to ascertain privacy of the nature of the case, the casino, the player, the thread, the situation, and all, of course]

Yes I am sure and this is my frustration and why I come across so harsh. The provider can charge the casino a flat fee or percentage. The player deals solely with the casino.

I said in my first post that I agree with the casino because of jurisdiction.

[holydarkness]

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

It's not that it didn't sink in, bluntly, I simply question the correctness of your statement, that the fund transfer happen between player and casino, that the provider doesn't involved in any. Is this a fact known with 100% certainty from you? Because, the reason I question the correctness of it and choose to take it as mere words instead of commiting it to my memory, from several conversation I have with casinos across many past cases, they have to pay the provider back for forfeited bets and/or the provider tell them which fund is payable to the player and which fund is not.

Riddle me this simple question, if the entire transaction and activity happens between casino and player, then what's the role of the provider? They simply provide a game script, let it be licensed to be played on a casino, and the casino paid certain amount for contract on certain period? Or perhaps other similar scenario?

And, since this is a scam accusation board, I'll certainly appreciate if your explanation can be supplemented with some kind of backup evidence to support that statement, that provider doesn't involved, and casino doesn't have any monetary obligation to the provider for bets being settled vs forfeited. I can produce mine --a rather fresh one, in fact-- if you do [with well-placed censor to ascertain privacy of the nature of the case, the casino, the player, the thread, the situation, and all, of course]

Yes I am sure and this is my frustration and why I come across so harsh. I said in my first post that I agree with the casino because of jurisdiction.

I'll appreciate a proof to back up your statement instead of just "yes, I am sure", I believe I've asked for it. I am ready to provide mine to prove the otherwise, that casino held a monetary obligation to pay-back the provider and/or to release fund that's only okayed by the provider. In fact, I'm just one talkimg away, I already have it in my gallery, with censored part to maintain anonymity.

The simple question that riddled me also still left unanswered, by the way.

[Rating Place]

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

This is just like the Fairlay case. I tell you something over and over again and it’s not sinking in. The provider has nothing to do with the money. All money transfers are between the player and casino.

It's not that it didn't sink in, bluntly, I simply question the correctness of your statement, that the fund transfer happen between player and casino, that the provider doesn't involved in any. Is this a fact known with 100% certainty from you? Because, the reason I question the correctness of it and choose to take it as mere words instead of commiting it to my memory, from several conversation I have with casinos across many past cases, they have to pay the provider back for forfeited bets and/or the provider tell them which fund is payable to the player and which fund is not.

Riddle me this simple question, if the entire transaction and activity happens between casino and player, then what's the role of the provider? They simply provide a game script, let it be licensed to be played on a casino, and the casino paid certain amount for contract on certain period? Or perhaps other similar scenario?

And, since this is a scam accusation board, I'll certainly appreciate if your explanation can be supplemented with some kind of backup evidence to support that statement, that provider doesn't involved, and casino doesn't have any monetary obligation to the provider for bets being settled vs forfeited. I can produce mine --a rather fresh one, in fact-- if you do [with well-placed censor to ascertain privacy of the nature of the case, the casino, the player, the thread, the situation, and all, of course]

Yes I am sure and this is my frustration and why I come across so harsh. I said in my first post that I agree with the casino because of jurisdiction.

I'll appreciate a proof to back up your statement instead of just "yes, I am sure", I believe I've asked for it. I am ready to provide mine to prove the otherwise, that casino held a monetary obligation to pay-back the provider and/or to release fund that's only okayed by the provider. In fact, I'm just one talkimg away, I already have it in my gallery, with censored part to maintain anonymity.

The simple question that riddled me also still left unanswered, by the way.

then prove it so we stop repeating. The provider can charge a flat fee or percentage of losses. The player deals with the casino. The casino may use a third party payment processor to pay the player.

[holydarkness]

I'll appreciate a proof to back up your statement instead of just "yes, I am sure", I believe I've asked for it. I am ready to provide mine to prove the otherwise, that casino held a monetary obligation to pay-back the provider and/or to release fund that's only okayed by the provider. In fact, I'm just one talkimg away, I already have it in my gallery, with censored part to maintain anonymity.

The simple question that riddled me also still left unanswered, by the way.

then prove it so we stop repeating. The provider can charge a flat fee or percentage of losses.

I believe that's not how thing works, at least not on this board. You called for something, you're obligated to prove it. You're the one who are 100% certain that casino doesn't hold a monetary obligation to their provider, that the decision to withheld fund pending investigation from a provider rest solely in the casino hand because transaction happens strictly between casino and player, where the provider doesn't involved. Of which I argued that I know that it doesn't work that way based on my correspondencies with casino representatives, that's well documented.

I asked you for proof to back up your claim, and your best rebuttal is "I am sure" and asking me to prove that you're wrong? Shouldn't it works like... you prove your statement is not baseless, then I procure my own as a rebuttal to your statement and proof?

Oh, here's another interesting thing, by your own words, which I believe is still based on that 100% certainty, "the provider can charge a flat fee or a percantege of losses", tell me, how does the decision to hold a fund for investigation is still completely at the hand of a casino when they're in a deal with provider on percentage-of-losses basis? It implies that the casino tied to certain degree of monetary obligation to the provider for each and single bets, winning or losing, made by the players, do I understand things wrong?

Kindly provide proof to back up your claim and enlighten me with the puzzling situation I have on my mind on my above paragraph, then I'll procure my screenshot.

Oh, and to prove that I am not bluffing,



Give me your supporting evidence to back up your 100% certainty that casino doesn't have obligation to provider, and the decision to withheld fund is completely at casino's decision, and I'll provide that image in full version.

[Rating Place]

Again, I said I agree with casino because of jurisdiction. I’m 100% positive on how providers work. What you say is incorrect and you have shown no proof of your theory where providers pay players. You made the original statement. Please let it go or show proof. Your screenshot shows nothing. You said you have proof. Some CS reps may not understand how things work.

Choosing the right casino software provider
You will need the appropriate software for your clients to play online casino games. It’s one of the first things to consider when opening an online casino. Multiple game providers can accommodate your requests with two payment models for the online casino software – outright purchase of software and a revenue share model. Let’s compare the two:

https://blog.genome.eu/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-start-an-online-casino/#:~:text=The%20revenue%20share%20model%20doesn,profit%2C%20quarterly%20profit%2C%20etc.

Two scenarios in all these cases.

1. Player owed $0. Provider holds no money from player and isnt’t obligated to pay player.

2. Player wins money. Provider holds none of the player’s money and provider owes player no money. The casino pays the player.

[clinexrino]

I don't get why casinos like Stake returns player's money for geolocalization because stake knows player deposit and risks it's money but Rollbit just waits for player to be in profit to ban it and cancel any kind of profit, but if player loses like i was those months, they keep quiet and let player lose as max as possible.

I'm fighting to get my own money... that's incredible.

Hope compliance Rollbit team can solve this.

[holydarkness]

Again, I said I agree with casino because of jurisdiction. I’m 100% positive on how providers work. What you say is incorrect and you have shown no proof of your theory where providers pay players. You made the original statement. Please let it go or show proof. Your screenshot shows nothing. You said you have proof. Some CS reps may not understand how things work.

Choosing the right casino software provider
You will need the appropriate software for your clients to play online casino games. It’s one of the first things to consider when opening an online casino. Multiple game providers can accommodate your requests with two payment models for the online casino software – outright purchase of software and a revenue share model. Let’s compare the two:

https://blog.genome.eu/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-start-an-online-casino/#:~:text=The%20revenue%20share%20model%20doesn,profit%2C%20quarterly%20profit%2C%20etc.

Oh, I believe you understand things wrong, I don't have any issue or have the slightest mind of you agreeing with the casino on jurisdiction or not, that's why I didn't comment on it, I don't see any relevancy of it on our [yet another] out of topic discussion. Wait... that's not entirely correct, I actually initially [internally] applaud you for being able to see [or at least start to see] cases from neutral ground, hoping that you'll finally try to mediate things from neutral perspective by asking OP facts... Then you went back to your default setting.

If it's not clear enough, the problem, as always, arise when you [or someone else, whoever they are, really, so save the "attack the post, not the person" speech] pollute the thread with opinion that rather negative and FUD-inducing. We're, the overseer, here stands on neutral ground, trying to solve cases on facts and all, reviewing evidence with sole aim to get things resolved and find who is guilty and who is the victim, each cases have different angle and should be treated differently, as each cases always has their own characteristics.

When someone out of the blue said they should stay away from a casino [any casino] for something that's out of the casino's control [the provider's request of investigation], how does that help with solving the case? Treat that as a serious question instead of rhetorical, tell me, if your aim is to help solve cases, how does such statement help? If a casino is dirty, their cummulative record will speak for their reputation. But until then, the sole aim should be to get to the bottom of a case.

It brought us to our discussion, first, that's not my screenshot, that's a screenshot of my gallery, showing that I indeed have a screenshot of a conversation with the reps explaining to me what contradict your statement, I'll provide that in full when you can give yours. But... that's your proof? Your 100% certainty? A blog about how to start an online casino? I have a proof of conversation with a staff that's investigating a case, who dive to the bottom of the case and made that statement from the SOP of their platform and what they gathered when investigating the case, who  have enough knowledge and power to maneuver and interact inter-departmentally, literally talking with game providers, and get things done, and your rebuttal, your 100% proof is an article on a blog?

Suppose that paragraph is not clear enough, no, that's not "some CS reps". I believe anyone who knows me [which I actually tend to think you're one of them] and my record on this board understand that the representatives I am in touch with, who are rather "close" that they can share such details of a case with me, are the ones who on the "upper floor", who knows rather lots of how things works on their casino.

Even if they're a "some CS reps" how exactly a blog guide to start an online casino trumped a "low-level" staff who trained to know some protocol? So how about me saying this to you instead of you saying it to me, "please let it go or show your proof"?

In case you wondered, hoping I'm not sounding repetitive but rather trying to be very clear, no, none of my questions above is rhetorical, I hope you answered each and every single one of them, give your proof to back up your statement, alongside with that casino doesn't have financial obligation to providers, and that when a decision to investigate a bet happens, the fund being withheld are on the sole decision and control of the casino instead of being influenced by any degree of the provider, or... drop it, let it go, and start learning to mediate cases on this board without prejudice and/or unnecessary comments that is not constructive.

The other alternative will be to leave this board altogether if you can't ensure yourself that you'll see each cases non-myopically.


Edit: Oh, I had this gnawing feeling that something is off, something that I missed earlier but luckily happened to be subconsciously latched itself to the back of my mind and keep on nudging me, of which prompt me to revisit the post [of which you've conveniently edited and added extra content, as always]. Your statement, which I shall edit on your quote and mark in red, a rather nice slow twist, isn't it?

This fruitless-toward-OP's-case discussion started and can be summarized from this post, I believe,

Umm... I don't think there is much that a casino can do, any casino, when the root of the situation is their provider inquiring for investigation. They have to comply to this and their hands are as tied as the players. So, basically, the situation with providers can happen to any casino, and it's quite unfair to make the casino [again, any casino] bear the burden for it.

The casino isn’t required to hold the player’s money. The casino has chosen to hold the player’s money. The ultimate decision on whether to pay or not, when under provider review, is always determined by the casino.

How? Doesn't a profit earned from a winning wager that's forfeited should be returned to the provider once the provider deemed the wager is wrong? If a casino release the fund prior to a ruling by the provider, and the player withdrawn the fund, wouldn't that mean the casino should pay the fund that's supposed to be returned to the provider from their own pocket?

My post is clear on this thread and on this matter, I never say that I have a theory that provider pay players, I simply debating your statement that people should stay away from certain casinos, since it shouldn't be their fault that the fund being held during an investigation, it's an inquiry made by the provider, and the casino held some kind of monetary obligation towards the provider, of which they have to keep the fund in question on hold for the rest of the investigation, and that I have a proof from a casino representative explaining how things work with the fund when an investigation being inquired.

So, here's an extra question aside from the already long list above: point me out to the statement I made on this thread where I said provider pays players, otherwise, stop twisting my words.

And edit for your edit, how does this scenario works out:

Player played a game, won 10,000 USD, provider feels there is something wrong with the betting pattern and/or found a bug on the game and/or suspected the player to utilize some cheating strategy. The provider requested for an investigation. The casino okayed that but release the fund [since you argued that the casino doesn't required to hold player's money], and one week later, the provider find incriminating evidences that the game player won were of a fraudulent manner.

Who bear the burden of 10,000 loss, assume your revenue share scheme? The fund is out of their hand. With whose fund should the casino "share" the revenue to the provider?

I don't get why casinos like Stake returns player's money for geolocalization because stake knows player deposit and risks it's money but Rollbit just waits for player to be in profit to ban it and cancel any kind of profit, but if player loses like i was those months, they keep quiet and let player lose as max as possible.

I'm fighting to get my own money... that's incredible.

Hope compliance Rollbit team can solve this.

OP, you missed my question about the capability of accessing your account and retrieving your login log for us, I'll appreciate if you can revisit post number #16 and help us understand better.

[Rating Place]

Again, I said I agree with casino because of jurisdiction. I’m 100% positive on how providers work. What you say is incorrect and you have shown no proof of your theory where providers pay players. You made the original statement. Please let it go or show proof. Your screenshot shows nothing. You said you have proof. Some CS reps may not understand how things work.

Choosing the right casino software provider
You will need the appropriate software for your clients to play online casino games. It’s one of the first things to consider when opening an online casino. Multiple game providers can accommodate your requests with two payment models for the online casino software – outright purchase of software and a revenue share model. Let’s compare the two:

https://blog.genome.eu/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-start-an-online-casino/#:~:text=The%20revenue%20share%20model%20doesn,profit%2C%20quarterly%20profit%2C%20etc.

Oh, I believe you understand things wrong, I don't have any issue or have the slightest mind of you agreeing with the casino on jurisdiction or not, that's why I didn't comment on it, I don't see any relevancy of it on our [yet another] out of topic discussion. Wait... that's not entirely correct, I actually initially [internally] applaud you for being able to see [or at least start to see] cases from neutral ground, hoping that you'll finally try to mediate things from neutral perspective by asking OP facts... Then you went back to your default setting.

If it's not clear enough, the problem, as always, arise when you [or someone else, whoever they are, really, so save the "attack the post, not the person" speech] pollute the thread with opinion that rather negative and FUD-inducing. We're, the overseer, here stands on neutral ground, trying to solve cases on facts and all, reviewing evidence with sole aim to get things resolved and find who is guilty and who is the victim, each cases have different angle and should be treated differently, as each cases always has their own characteristics.

When someone out of the blue said they should stay away from a casino [any casino] for something that's out of the casino's control [the provider's request of investigation], how does that help with solving the case? Treat that as a serious question instead of rhetorical, tell me, if your aim is to help solve cases, how does such statement help? If a casino is dirty, their cummulative record will speak for their reputation. But until then, the sole aim should be to get to the bottom of a case.

It brought us to our discussion, first, that's not my screenshot, that's a screenshot of my gallery, showing that I indeed have a screenshot of a conversation with the reps explaining to me what contradict your statement, I'll provide that in full when you can give yours. But... that's your proof? Your 100% certainty? A blog about how to start an online casino? I have a proof of conversation with a staff that's investigating a case, who dive to the bottom of the case and made that statement from the SOP of their platform and what they gathered when investigating the case, who  have enough knowledge and power to maneuver and interact inter-departmentally, literally talking with game providers, and get things done, and your rebuttal, your 100% proof is an article on a blog?

Suppose that paragraph is not clear enough, no, that's not "some CS reps". I believe anyone who knows me [which I actually tend to think you're one of them] and my record on this board understand that the representatives I am in touch with, who are rather "close" that they can share such details of a case with me, are the ones who on the "upper floor", who knows rather lots of how things works on their casino.

Even if they're a "some CS reps" how exactly a blog guide to start an online casino trumped a "low-level" staff who trained to know some protocol? So how about me saying this to you instead of you saying it to me, "please let it go or show your proof"?

In case you wondered, hoping I'm not sounding repetitive but rather trying to be very clear, no, none of my questions above is rhetorical, I hope you answered each and every single one of them, give your proof to back up your statement, alongside with that casino doesn't have financial obligation to providers, and that when a decision to investigate a bet happens, the fund being withheld are on the sole decision and control of the casino instead of being influenced by any degree of the provider, or... drop it, let it go, and start learning to mediate cases on this board without prejudice and/or unnecessary comments that is not constructive.

The other alternative will be to leave this board altogether if you can't ensure yourself that you'll see each cases non-myopically.

I don't get why casinos like Stake returns player's money for geolocalization because stake knows player deposit and risks it's money but Rollbit just waits for player to be in profit to ban it and cancel any kind of profit, but if player loses like i was those months, they keep quiet and let player lose as max as possible.

I'm fighting to get my own money... that's incredible.

Hope compliance Rollbit team can solve this.

OP, you missed my question about the capability of accessing your account and retrieving your login log for us, I'll appreciate if you can revisit post number #16 and help us understand better.

The casino is 100% under control of payouts. The provider is an excuse that’s only happening to Rollbit and BC.game. These games work fine for everyone else. You should stop saying that it’s out of the casino’s hands. This goes for all the active cases with the provider excuse.

[memehunter]

I am glad to see how meticulously and patiently holydarkness is bringing out the root of the matter. Kudos for your efforts. I have been observing recent debates (I am not sure if we can categorize them as such ) between holydarkness and Rating Place, and I believe there is a common theme (misconception from holydarkness's POV) that he always goes soft on casinos while Rating Place most of the time acquires a harsh tone against casinos.
My hunch is holydarkness has built some rapport with casinos (and his hard work must be recognized for that as it is not an easy thing to do) while serving as a long-standing medium between casinos and this forum. He wants to maintain that rapport as it might be essential to investigate/speed up cases. Does this mean we should moderate our skepticism against unaccountable (Curaçao license holders ) mammoths? I do not think so, and this is, IMHO, what Rating Place is doing. I can feel him going hard on casinos and showing support (even sometimes without evidence ) to players. While I totally appreciate the efforts (I wish I could be that energetic) of holydarkness, I just want to say that this time I sense a bully in you, which was totally unnecessary.
Regarding the case, if OP can show that in the past he made successful bets and cashed out using his current IP location in question (which led to the ban), then the casino is at fault.

[GxSTxV]

You have created a topic against Rollbit being unfair with you, and at the same time you have mentioned the reason why your account is locked and restricted your withdrawal. I believe this is pointless if your account and activities were made inside Spain country and you don't have any evidence against that.
I'm 100% sure that you will never get a solution for your matter after breaking the rules of Rollbit, even their representatives won't have to reply to you if yourself confessed playing and living in Spain.
Next time try to read the TOS of any casino before playing, some countries are restricted in specific casinos, however, most of people agree on ToS even without reading or understanding them, that's why we mostly arrive to this point and similar situations such as your topic.

[holydarkness]

The casino is 100% under control of payouts. The provider is an excuse that’s only happening to Rollbit and BC.game. These games work fine for everyone else. You should stop saying that it’s out of the casino’s hands. This goes for all the active cases with the provider excuse.

I believe my massive wall of text contains a lot of questions that I humbly asked you to address each and every single one of them, including the ones I added on my edit when I realized something is off. Which you seemingly don't address any. And we're yet to see your evidence to back up your claim, unless that blog article is what you refer as 100% certainty.

[...]
My hunch is holydarkness has built some rapport with casinos (and his hard work must be recognized for that as it is not an easy thing to do) while serving as a long-standing medium between casinos and this forum. He wants to maintain that rapport as it might be essential to investigate/speed up cases. [...]

I've red tagged Rollbit and other casinos in the past for their unresponsiveness in active cases, supporting and later withdrawing flags against casinos when they cleared their reputation, as well as, speaking strictly about Rollbit, hounding Razer to a point that he [at one point] replied me on a very strict one liner. I believe many who's been around here for a while can vouch for those times where I tagged and take drastic measures against casinos.

So you can rest assured that I don't quite care much about "maintaining a rapport" with them to a length and in a sense where I have to play soft with them and turning blind or myopic eyes just to speed up a case. Yes, their correspondencies and trust in me certainly helps people on this forum [I can't stress and repeat this enough that I am not benefited in any way from any cases resolved or unresolved], and I am grateful for their decision to be prompt and respective towards my communication attempt, or that some of them even entrusted their personal contact that I can reach when the necessity arise, but that doesn't necessarily translates into me have to play soft with any casino. I know that, they know that, frequent overseer of the forum know that.

As I said above, I treat every cases differently, the sole aim is to get things solved, "if a casino is dirty, their cummulative record will speak for their reputation. But until then, the sole aim should be to get to the bottom of a case."

But umm... thanks for the words... I... guess? That part of me being medium between casinos and the forum. I choose to take that as a compliment and allow myself to feel flattered.

[Rating Place]

So, who are EVO’s customers, and how does the company get paid? Online casinos and gaming providers like DraftKings, GVC Holdings, William Hill, and 300 other such providers are its customers. These operators typically sign a three-year contract. The most basic agreements normally include access to livestreaming generic tables, while more complex agreements can include dedicated tables and environments, VIP services, native-speaking dealers, and other customizations to produce a Live Casino experience that is as unique as possible for the end user and helps the operator stand out from the crowd.

The majority of EVO’s revenues consists of commission fees (~10% to 20% of gross winnings) and fixed fees for dedicated tables, which are paid monthly by operators. Commission is calculated as a percentage of the operators’ winnings generated via the company’s Live Casino offering.

https://willowoakfunds.com/news-and-views/svn-evolution

REVENUE MODEL
The most basic agreements normally include access to, and streaming from generic tables, while more complex agreements can include dedicated tables and environments, VIP services, native speaking dealers and other customisations to produce a Live Casino experience that is as unique as possible for the end end user and helps the operator stand out from the crowd.

The majority of Evolution’s revenues consist of commission fees and fixed fees for dedicated tables, which are paid monthly by operators. Commission is calculated as a percentage of the operators’ winnings generated via the company’s Live Casino offering. Through commission, Evolution gains beneficial exposure to the general growth of the Live Casino market.

Dedicated table fees are monthly service charges to operators who have opted to provide dedicated tables for their end users. Dedicated tables are reserved and used exclusively by the operator, and can be customised completely to the operator’s requirements as regards studio environment, graphics, brand attributes and language. The fee varies from customer to customer depending on factors such as the type of game, number of tables and active hours.

In addition to commission and dedicated table fees, there are other smaller sources of income such as set-up fees, which are invoiced to new customers in conjunction with the launch of their Live Casino offering.

https://www.evolution.com/investors/company-overview/business-model/


DraftKings, GVC Holdings, William Hill, and 300 other such providers aren't having problems with the same games that Rollbit and BC.game are having.

@memehunter You made a great post. I take the player’s side with no proof and make the book prove guilt.

[clinexrino]

I am glad to see how meticulously and patiently holydarkness is bringing out the root of the matter. Kudos for your efforts. I have been observing recent debates (I am not sure if we can categorize them as such ) between holydarkness and Rating Place, and I believe there is a common theme (misconception from holydarkness's POV) that he always goes soft on casinos while Rating Place most of the time acquires a harsh tone against casinos.
My hunch is holydarkness has built some rapport with casinos (and his hard work must be recognized for that as it is not an easy thing to do) while serving as a long-standing medium between casinos and this forum. He wants to maintain that rapport as it might be essential to investigate/speed up cases. Does this mean we should moderate our skepticism against unaccountable (Curaçao license holders ) mammoths? I do not think so, and this is, IMHO, what Rating Place is doing. I can feel him going hard on casinos and showing support (even sometimes without evidence ) to players. While I totally appreciate the efforts (I wish I could be that energetic) of holydarkness, I just want to say that this time I sense a bully in you, which was totally unnecessary.
Regarding the case, if OP can show that in the past he made successful bets and cashed out using his current IP location in question (which led to the ban), then the casino is at fault.

I've been playing from long ago in rollbit, I don't know how can I prove that I made bets and withdraws with spanish IP(I did it) (they have it in their system 100%, but they INSTA BAN me when i sent my ID, I didn't make screenshot at all because wasn't thinking that was rollbit plans).

But I can make another acc and make the same behaviour as mine ban, so I could prove it, for now I won't because I've did KYC as requested and Rollbit doesn't want me in their page, but if they answer me saying no money for me, if is needed I will do it to prove that you can bet deposit withdraw with spanish IP until you are a profitable player, if u are a loser like I was for months you are more than welcome.

By the way I've edited my first message of this topic, because I explain the way rollbit works with restricted players and as I wrote, I think you can feel my frustration, because this is intentional.

[leftlanepapi]

Good thread, while you should never play in a casino that is restricted in your country straight up blocking the withdrawals afterwards is extremely scummy behaviour. User should instead be put into some sort of withdrawal only mode.

[clinexrino]

I'll just wait for compliance to answer, they told me no more than 8 weeks to answer... that's a lot of time not gona lie.

Yep that is for example how Stake does, withdraw only mode and account ban, that is legit.

And all of you guys that say you break TOS bla bla okey ban my account, my IP, my KYC, but don't take my money.
I'm been honest and telling my situation and If Rollbit doesn't pay my profit that was so hard for me to make it, they took 3 months of my work money,
why I can't take profit now? So TOS only when I'm profitable, If I'm a loser like I was for long months it's OK, Spanish money player you are welcome.

If they deny my 5k, somehow I'll prove that Rollbit does this behaviour in porpuse to get money from loser restricted country gamblers in their favour, not in TOS favour.

I'm mad at this because it's not like Rollbit detected that I was from Spain and since min 1 they required me KYC,
they required KYC the moment I request the withdraw that make's Rollbit lose vs me, after 3-4 months of me losing all time.

It would be different for me if at the first time they detect me I'm from Spain they ban me, that's different, now after 3-4 months I had the best luck of my life, you ban me because now I'm profitable?

[holydarkness]

So, who are EVO’s customers, and how does the company get paid? Online casinos and gaming providers like DraftKings, GVC Holdings, William Hill, and 300 other such providers are its customers. These operators typically sign a three-year contract. The most basic agreements normally include access to livestreaming generic tables, while more complex agreements can include dedicated tables and environments, VIP services, native-speaking dealers, and other customizations to produce a Live Casino experience that is as unique as possible for the end user and helps the operator stand out from the crowd.

The majority of EVO’s revenues consists of commission fees (~10% to 20% of gross winnings) and fixed fees for dedicated tables, which are paid monthly by operators. Commission is calculated as a percentage of the operators’ winnings generated via the company’s Live Casino offering.

https://willowoakfunds.com/news-and-views/svn-evolution

REVENUE MODEL
The most basic agreements normally include access to, and streaming from generic tables, while more complex agreements can include dedicated tables and environments, VIP services, native speaking dealers and other customisations to produce a Live Casino experience that is as unique as possible for the end end user and helps the operator stand out from the crowd.

The majority of Evolution’s revenues consist of commission fees and fixed fees for dedicated tables, which are paid monthly by operators. Commission is calculated as a percentage of the operators’ winnings generated via the company’s Live Casino offering. Through commission, Evolution gains beneficial exposure to the general growth of the Live Casino market.

Dedicated table fees are monthly service charges to operators who have opted to provide dedicated tables for their end users. Dedicated tables are reserved and used exclusively by the operator, and can be customised completely to the operator’s requirements as regards studio environment, graphics, brand attributes and language. The fee varies from customer to customer depending on factors such as the type of game, number of tables and active hours.

In addition to commission and dedicated table fees, there are other smaller sources of income such as set-up fees, which are invoiced to new customers in conjunction with the launch of their Live Casino offering.

https://www.evolution.com/investors/company-overview/business-model/

Thank you for going to a length to prove that you made a wrong statement, that casino indeed have certain monetary obligation to the providers [highlighted in red on your snippets], of which heavily implies that when a provider requires an investigation, the casino shall comply and confiscate the fund in question until investigation finished. Thus, their hands are tied, and thus, disprove your statement that brought us to this lengthy discussion.

In case you still fail to understand how casino has to comply and insist on your perspective, despite the article you provide yourself, perhaps if you can start answering my list of questions, you'll hopefully gain a shift and a better point of view; specifically this one,

[...]
And edit for your edit, how does this scenario works out:

Player played a game, won 10,000 USD, provider feels there is something wrong with the betting pattern and/or found a bug on the game and/or suspected the player to utilize some cheating strategy. The provider requested for an investigation. The casino okayed that but release the fund [since you argued that the casino doesn't required to hold player's money], and one week later, the provider find incriminating evidences that the game player won were of a fraudulent manner.

Who bear the burden of 10,000 loss, assume your revenue share scheme? The fund is out of their hand. With whose fund should the casino "share" the revenue to the provider?
[...]

The other bunch of questions on the very same post are yet to be addressed, I'll really appreciate if you can start enlighten us with answers and clarification.

DraftKings, GVC Holdings, William Hill, and 300 other such providers aren't having problems with the same games that Rollbit and BC.game are having.

Are we sure about this and this is yet another 100% fact? That they don't have problem with same games? I don't think they have any ANN or representative here, do they? So how can we know for certain if they don't have similar issues? That no players of their platform ever have to wait for their money while being investigated? How can we be sure that it's not that they actually do, but have to wait in silence and patience since they don't have a media to complain? Seriously asking, expecting an answer just like the rest of the unaddressed ones above.

@memehunter You made a great post. I take the player’s side with no proof and make the book prove guilt.

You've made numerous similar statements in the past of which I choose to ignore, but perhaps it's time to address this and clear it out. With all due respect and complete confusion, is this really a trait that worth being bragged about? You made a public statement that you'll take side of a player, disregarding proof, how is this good for the scam accusations board and toward a case resolution, as an overseer who should stand on neutral ground?

Before you can consider this as a provocative question, no, I have zero intention for that matter on this question. I am sincerely trying to weight the benefits of it and understand how it works in this board.

I've been playing from long ago in rollbit, I don't know how can I prove that I made bets and withdraws with spanish IP(I did it) (they have it in their system 100%, but they INSTA BAN me when i sent my ID, I didn't make screenshot at all because wasn't thinking that was rollbit plans).

But I can make another acc and make the same behaviour as mine ban, so I could prove it, for now I won't because I've did KYC as requested and Rollbit doesn't want me in their page, but if they answer me saying no money for me, if is needed I will do it to prove that you can bet deposit withdraw with spanish IP until you are a profitable player, if u are a loser like I was for months you are more than welcome.

By the way I've edited my first message of this topic, because I explain the way rollbit works with restricted players and as I wrote, I think you can feel my frustration, because this is intentional.

OP, the main problem here is that you played from restricted territory. Regardless of when they ban you, be it when you made a withdrawal, when you complete a KYC, when you first gambled, when you gambled for the 100th time, when you win big, or whenever that is, a ToS is still being violated.

You entered an agreement with them whenever you accessed their site,

By accessing the site, I attest that I am at least 18 years old and have read the Terms & Conditions.

of which their terms and condition page clearly mentioned that Spain is one of their restricted country and players being a resident of this country are not allowed to play.

I am really sorry, but I can't see how the casino should share the blame of this. I've tried numerous times through VPN from restricted territories, and the pop-up always shows, so I dare to assume that either the same pop-up also shown to you but you decided to click them close, or you use a pop-up blocker [past cases and experiments from other members told me that pop-up blocker can sometimes intervene with these messages].

Nonetheless, you attest each time you accessed them that you've read them, and the ToS is still being broken.

Best I can try to push Rollbit for this matter is to pull your overall PnL, and if you're in a loss, I can perhaps ask them to consider returning the sum of your deposit so you're in break-even. If you're in overall profit though, then this case is as good as closed.

[Rating Place]

Holydarkness , you are now at the point where you are just blatantly lying and it’s not a first. I never said that I “disregard proof”. I said that a player is innocent until proven guilty. The player starts off innocent. Facts must prove his guilt.

You start off saying that the player is guilty and must prove his innocence. It’s impossible to prove innocence because these casinos keep changing and tacking on new allegations mid stream. The casino must prove guilt.